Should the UK pay a divorce bill from the EU ?

[Doggit]

Why is it that nearly all rape/harassment cases are made against men?

If you don't the answer to that, then you have a very poor understanding of society and of people.

You have too many automatic knee jerk reactions to some of the innocuous comments that I make. You jump on them because they are against the way you think, and you just have to stand up against the injustices of society, even if they aren't there.

Ever noticed how there are more cases being reported of women beating up men, when they'd have suffered in silence years ago.

As far as I know that the court and it's peers is what decides if a crime has been committed, not the person who feels offended.

No, the police decide if a crime has been commited, the CPS decide if there's a reasonable chance of a prosecution, and a jury of your peers decide if your guilty.

Now, did you actually mean that, or just put it down wrongly, and got jumped on.

 

[blightymam]

You have too many automatic knee jerk reactions to some of the innocuous comments that I make. You jump on them because they are against the way you think, and you just have to stand up against the injustices of society, even if they aren't there.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Who exactly is being punished for offending a woman by asking her out of a date? I can remember you talking about this before and your attitude then was the same. That men are fearful now of asking out women. I have said again and again, no sane woman is offended by being asked out. It's when it doesn't stop at no it's a problem. So can I ask, why do you think, in reality, women are going to become hysterical and possibly report them to the police if they are asked out?

Unfortunately, the police have now been told that they have to beleive the complainant, rather than investigate to see if there has been a justifiable case. Women who cry rape, are believed, and the perp automatically arrested, then they have to prove their innocense.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence, so in effect, most people accused of a sexual harrasment, rape, homophobic offence, or anything of that nature, are now having their rights under article 11 trampled on.

Then there is this lot of 'innocuous' comments.
Where are people not being presumed innocent? Where are their rights being trampled on?
Who has told the police now that they have to believe the complainant? When did this change? Who told them to change? Who told them to not investigate and just believe that it has happened? When did the burden of proof switch from prosecution to prove to the court a defendant is guilty?

Examples please. Oh and while we are it, examples where people have been offended and gone to the police for being asked out on a date.

No, the police decide if a crime has been commited, the CPS decide if there's a reasonable chance of a prosecution, and a jury of your peers decide if your guilty.

Did you actually mean to be that pedantic or was it just something you wanted to jump on?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

No, the police decide if a crime has been commited,

You sure?

 

[Doggit]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...it-of-tv-fun-wait-until-they-lock-you-up.html

Lord Brittan, Ted Heath, most people that came after the Saville enquiry, just to name a few. So why do men get arrested straight away when a women makes an accusation of rape, it's because the police have believed her rather than call the person in for questioning, and then made an arrest when they have enough evidence. The Police wer ordered by parliment to get their rape prosecutions up, and that's not good police work, because you should only prosecute thos who are guilty, hence why men get arrested, and their names put in the paper to see if anyone else comes forward. If man gets his name put in the papers for being accused of rape - whether he did it or not, and he thern gets tainted with that assusation for the rest of his life, isn't that trampling on his rights.

You sure?

Yes, it's the police that have to investigate the alledged crime, and then pass the information on to the CPS, okay, it become a little intangible where one stops, and the other takes over, so I know what you're getting at, but not everything gets passed on, so essentially, it's the police that make the initial decision. The CPS aren't really bothered if a crime has been commited, only if they can get the prosecution. Under the old system where by the police decided if there was a crime, and then took the prosecution forward, there were a lot of misscarriages of justice, and a lot of criminals got fitted up, some of them innocent, some not, so I don't really know of the system has improved or not.

 

[blightymam]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...it-of-tv-fun-wait-until-they-lock-you-up.html


Yes, it's the police that have to investigate the alledged crime, and then pass the information on to the CPS, okay, it become a little intangible where one stops, and the other takes over, so I know what you're getting at, but not everything gets passed on, so essentially, it's the police that make the initial decision. .

A
Unfortunately, the police have now been told that they have to beleive the complainant, rather than investigate to see if there has been a justifiable case.

I can't keep up! So the police do investigate? So why did you say the didn't?

 

[blightymam]

Yes, it's the police that have to investigate the alledged crime, and then pass the information on to the CPS, okay, it become a little intangible where one stops, and the other takes over, so I know what you're getting at, but not everything gets passed on, so essentially, it's the police that make the initial decision. The CPS aren't really bothered if a crime has been commited, only if they can get the prosecution. Under the old system where by the police decided if there was a crime, and then took the prosecution forward, there were a lot of misscarriages of justice, and a lot of criminals got fitted up, some of them innocent, some not, so I don't really know of the system has improved or not.

No, the police decide if a crime has been commited, the CPS decide if there's a reasonable chance of a prosecution, and a jury of your peers decide if your guilty.

Now, did you actually mean that, or just put it down wrongly, and got jumped on.

So if it's intangible in your head, why did you highlight what I wrote as wrong?

 

[Doggit]

Try and keep up Blighty. I didn't say they didn't investigate, I said that they believe the complaintant, so obviously, they don't bother to investiagate properly. When you believe neither side, and are therefore impartial, you listen to both sides before reaching a conclusion. When you start by believing the complaintant, you look for the facts that support the complainers story, and that's not a proper investigation.

So if it's intangible in your head, why did you highlight what I wrote as wrong?

I have no idea what you're talking about, I didn't highlight anything; that seems to be you're doing.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Excellent posts Doggit.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It makes you wonder why people detained on remand

It shows that "innocent until proved guilty" is a fallacy.

 

[blightymam]

Try and keep up Blighty. I didn't say they didn't investigate, I said that they believe the complaintant, so obviously, they don't bother to investiagate properly. When you believe neither side, and are therefore impartial, you listen to both sides before reaching a conclusion. When you start by believing the complaintant, you look for the facts that support the complainers story, and that's not a proper investigation.



I have no idea what you're talking about, I didn't highlight anything; that seems to be you're doing.

So you should've written the word 'properly' as without 'rather than investigating' you were saying that the police where going to believe the claimant without investigating.

I still don't think you're saying anything other than your point of view tho, and you seem to have stated a lot as fact, like the police etc. You now say that people aren't being impartial - well, no, they're not, general people aren't. But luckily for us judges, jury and the police are supposed to be impartial and look at facts. I also see no evidence from you that the police as a normal matter of course nowadays can believe that someone has been raped or offended say, that it stops them doing their job properly and look for evidence.

And you've not shown me that asking someone on a date these days can offend someone. Isn't that what this started as?

 

[blightymam]

As far as I know that the court and it's peers is what decides if a crime has been committed, not the person who feels offended.

No, the police decide if a crime has been commited, the CPS decide if there's a reasonable chance of a prosecution, and a jury of your peers decide if your guilty.

Now, did you actually mean that, or just put it down wrongly, and got jumped on.

I have no idea what you're talking about, I didn't highlight anything; that seems to be you're doing.

 

[blightymam]

It shows that "innocent until proved guilty" is a fallacy.

Luckily for us, the police and judges use their noggin.
Wouldn't want a nutter up for murder walking free while waiting for the court case would ya?

 

[Doggit]

Sorry Blighty, in reference to the "highlights" issue, I thought you were referring to the bits you'd put in bold.

Luckily for us, the police and judges use their noggin.
Wouldn't want a nutter up for murder walking free while waiting for the court case would ya

You really need to read a bit more.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/43...urder-are-committed-by-suspects-freed-on-bail

That was the first one that I came across, and that's 4 years old. Much worse nowadays.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-committed-days-total-number-higher-that.html

The statistic for offences commited by peole on bail is horrendous, and shows that the courts and the police fail to use their noggins on a regular basis.

Seem to remember a couple of weeks ago where the husband was given his guns back after threats to his family, and he then went and murdered them soon afterwards.

 

[blightymam]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...it-of-tv-fun-wait-until-they-lock-you-up.html

Lord Brittan, Ted Heath, most people that came after the Saville enquiry, just to name a few. So why do men get arrested straight away when a women makes an accusation of rape, it's because the police have believed her rather than call the person in for questioning, and then made an arrest when they have enough evidence. The Police wer ordered by parliment to get their rape prosecutions up, and that's not good police work, because you should only prosecute thos who are guilty, hence why men get arrested, and their names put in the paper to see if anyone else comes forward. If man gets his name put in the papers for being accused of rape - whether he did it or not, and he thern gets tainted with that assusation for the rest of his life, isn't that trampling on his rights.

I hear you - and am not decided if people should be named when arrested although I lean towards anonymity. On one hand it can help going to the press, like in the case of Saville, many more victims came forward. Ok, he was dead by then, but you could still argue his image would've been tainted forever had he been found innocent. And on the other hand is what you said, it can ruin lives if innocent.

Being arrested I have no problem with. Not many people go voluntarily for questioning. and on an accusation of rape it's serious enough in my mind to be arrested.

I had no idea that the police were ordered to get the rape prosecutions up. Where did you hear that? Or was it a case of pulling their socks up and not having an incredibly low conviction rate on rape? I did just read this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...owest-levels-since-records-began-9669813.html
Doesn't sound like it was bad police work, in fact is sounded like there is hope for improvements.

"The national policing lead for adult sex offences, assistant commissioner Martin Hewitt, said: “All the changes we have made in the way police deal with sexual offences - specialist training of officers, the introduction of early evidence kits, greater access to sexual assault referral centres and working closely with support groups - are changes that have emerged from looking at ourselves and realising that we can do things better. We’ve taken another hard look at how we do things and found room for further improvements through the Rape Action Plan the police service has jointly developed with the CPS and which was announced in June.”"

 

[Doggit]

Most people actually go voluntarialy for questioning, rather than being arrested; TV shows and real life are completely differently. The Police were ordered to improve the number of prosecutions for rape around the time of that article, possibly in response to the fact that a lot of women weren't being believed when they reported a rape, and the statement you're included does seem to be a typical response to getting their knuckles rapped. If you look at Hewits wikepdia page, he's just another tick box expert there to improve the polices image.

Unfortunately, ACPO have turned the police into a militant force more interested in defending their rights, rather than doing a good job. It was the Labour Government under Blair that started to set targets, hence the increase in cautions to clear up offence rates, and Cameron just continued the "lets look as though we're actually doing something" trend.

Going back to your comments about women going to the police for being asked out on a date, I never said that anyone had done that. My contention was that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and political correctness is all the rage nowdays. Not every girls will see a pass as being an offence, and not every young bloke will recognise the signals, either positive or negative that a girl gives off. Society is not so forgiving nowadays for the youngs sometimes pathetic attempts at learning social graces.