-
Posts
-
@forumhostpb wrote:
Perhaps the answer is that BOTH parties to a sexual offence are granted anonymity until a finding of guilt whereupon the rapist can be named (and shamed) publicly.[/b][/color]
Couldnt agree more.
@Bad Manners wrote:
They should actually chuck the girl in Jail for a year or two, and let her think about what’s she’s done.
And if what if she really was raped? You would have an innocent person thrown in jail? Rape is really hard to prove, so how can you make the conclusion of the footballer being innocent and the girl being guilty?
@~Tickled Pink~ wrote:
@Bad Manners wrote:
They should actually chuck the girl in Jail for a year or two, and let her think about what’s she’s done.
And if what if she really was raped? You would have an innocent person thrown in jail? Rape is really hard to prove, so how can you make the conclusion of the footballer being innocent and the girl being guilty?
Yes that is a point. But eventually you have to draw the line somewhere and generally this is done when a jury finds a defendant guilty or not guilty.
If you took the view that even though a person was found not guilty in a court, they must have done it anyway and it just couldn’t be proved, then this totally undermines the entire justice system and trial by jury.
According to the press report, the (anonymous) girl claimed she had been raped. the named male denied it totally. Ergo one of them must have been telling lies. He was found not guilty – so the only conclusion from this is that she must have lied.
Maybe they publish the name to see if any other possible accusers come forward
Or to sell papers? If you read David Beckham had raped a young girl… it’s going to be big news right?
yes but they also publish Fred Bloggs name once he’s accused
@pete wrote:
Maybe they publish the name to see if any other possible accusers come forward
John Leslie springs to mind. All of a sudden he was a serial sex offender, being accused by folk who never thought to mention it before he hit the headlines.
I suspect that the ”selling papers” argument is the more likely one. This story got the level of publicity it did because the alleged (and proven innocent) rapist was a publicly known person. If it had been some bloke from Wherever-on-Tyne that nobody had ever heard of, the national Media probably wouldn’t have even bothered to report it.
As it is, his name has been splashed all over the national Media, he’s lost his job as an actor (and maybe even his career) as a result, and for the rest of his life he will carry the stigma of this matter with him.
She, on the other hand, remains totally anonymous and can carry on with her life secure in the knowledge that she can never be named.
There is no smoke without fire but …….. funny how peeps that spotted the the alledged event never mentioned a man forcing himself unwelcomely on the 16 year old.
Still trying to get my head around her dad leaving her by the pool with him at that time of night. Strange thing for a parent to do? :shock: :?
Could it of been case of teenage girl crying wolf in the cold light of day?? :-k
I guess even though he has been found innocent I suspect his career is over just as John Leslie’s is. Call me cynical but I think the family set Freeman up from the start but it back fired, so the girl cried rape to save her own reputation.
Sick when you think of the real rape cases that we all hear about. :evil:
A daughter who get’s beaten up by her parents when claiming of an assault would, it appears, be the kind of girl to make a false rape accusation.
how bizarre
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!