Ronaldo Allegation

Borderline subject in terms of relevance on this board but I think people here will have opinions on the matter.

In recent weeks in the USA we've seen the weaponisation of sex allegations in an attempt to block the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge or delay it in the hope that the mid terms will go the way of the Democrats so they can block any nominee who would stop them destroying the first and second amendments.
Now we see a similarly dubious allegation about Ronaldo from some woman who claims that he raped her in Vegas in 2009. Is she trying to get more money out of him, or acting on behalf of some rival interest or third party who wishes to damage him ?

For about 1300 years we took the view that all criminal allegations should be thoroughly investigated as to whether they were true or concocted, that people who were accused could only be convicted when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , and that we don't generally even try to prosecute on allegations made many years after the alleged crime.

Common sense will tell you that it's suspicious for someone to come up with an allegation of a crime which they didn't bother to report at the time, but complain about years later. ( in the case of the woman in Vegas she did report it at the time but didn't identify Ronaldo as a suspect). Perhaps more importantly, it's impossible to investigate anything years later when memories have faded, forensic evidence is long gone and vital witnesses may be now untraceable or dead. Thus ,any conviction in such cases would be intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the society wide mental illness which currently afflicts us in so many areas of life, is that we must apparently make an exception to this requirement for proper reliable evidence where the alleged victim is female , just in case she finds the whole experience a bit upsetting. The presumption seems to be that no female is capable of lying or imagining anything and so, unlike other crimes,evidentially verifying the truth of the allegation is unimportant .

This is a powerful tool to place into the hands of every female and a terrifying prospect for people like football players who are known to be very rich and subject to huge payouts to alleged victims of vague and unprovable tales from the distant past.

As I said, it's of dubious relevance to this thread, but I suppose that once it's caught on as a quick way of screwing money out of footballers or disrupting their ability to play, we could see local club attending females catching on and trying to get a few grand out of Cardiff players. Could that happen , and is this something we should challenge or just another freakish development of a ver sick society that we should just put up with like all the others ?

Wont let me edit - Very sick society

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

Borderline subject in terms of relevance on this board but I think people here will have opinions on the matter.

In recent weeks in the USA we've seen the weaponisation of sex allegations in an attempt to block the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge or delay it in the hope that the mid terms will go the way of the Democrats so they can block any nominee who would stop them destroying the first and second amendments.
Now we see a similarly dubious allegation about Ronaldo from some woman who claims that he raped her in Vegas in 2009. Is she trying to get more money out of him, or acting on behalf of some rival interest or third party who wishes to damage him ?

For about 1300 years we took the view that all criminal allegations should be thoroughly investigated as to whether they were true or concocted, that people who were accused could only be convicted when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , and that we don't generally even try to prosecute on allegations made many years after the alleged crime.

Common sense will tell you that it's suspicious for someone to come up with an allegation of a crime which they didn't bother to report at the time, but complain about years later. ( in the case of the woman in Vegas she did report it at the time but didn't identify Ronaldo as a suspect). Perhaps more importantly, it's impossible to investigate anything years later when memories have faded, forensic evidence is long gone and vital witnesses may be now untraceable or dead. Thus ,any conviction in such cases would be intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the society wide mental illness which currently afflicts us in so many areas of life, is that we must apparently make an exception to this requirement for proper reliable evidence where the alleged victim is female , just in case she finds the whole experience a bit upsetting. The presumption seems to be that no female is capable of lying or imagining anything and so, unlike other crimes,evidentially verifying the truth of the allegation is unimportant .

This is a powerful tool to place into the hands of every female and a terrifying prospect for people like football players who are known to be very rich and subject to huge payouts to alleged victims of vague and unprovable tales from the distant past.

As I said, it's of dubious relevance to this thread, but I suppose that once it's caught on as a quick way of screwing money out of footballers or disrupting their ability to play, we could see local club attending females catching on and trying to get a few grand out of Cardiff players. Could that happen , and is this something we should challenge or just another freakish development of a ver sick society that we should just put up with like all the others ?

Common sense doesn't tell me that a crime not reported at the time is necessarily "suspicious". The situation will be unique, and the reasons for not reporting the incident need to be considered in context of the circumstances and not generalised as you appear to be doing

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Borderline subject in terms of relevance on this board but I think people here will have opinions on the matter.

In recent weeks in the USA we've seen the weaponisation of sex allegations in an attempt to block the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge or delay it in the hope that the mid terms will go the way of the Democrats so they can block any nominee who would stop them destroying the first and second amendments.
Now we see a similarly dubious allegation about Ronaldo from some woman who claims that he raped her in Vegas in 2009. Is she trying to get more money out of him, or acting on behalf of some rival interest or third party who wishes to damage him ?

For about 1300 years we took the view that all criminal allegations should be thoroughly investigated as to whether they were true or concocted, that people who were accused could only be convicted when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , and that we don't generally even try to prosecute on allegations made many years after the alleged crime.

Common sense will tell you that it's suspicious for someone to come up with an allegation of a crime which they didn't bother to report at the time, but complain about years later. ( in the case of the woman in Vegas she did report it at the time but didn't identify Ronaldo as a suspect). Perhaps more importantly, it's impossible to investigate anything years later when memories have faded, forensic evidence is long gone and vital witnesses may be now untraceable or dead. Thus ,any conviction in such cases would be intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the society wide mental illness which currently afflicts us in so many areas of life, is that we must apparently make an exception to this requirement for proper reliable evidence where the alleged victim is female , just in case she finds the whole experience a bit upsetting. The presumption seems to be that no female is capable of lying or imagining anything and so, unlike other crimes,evidentially verifying the truth of the allegation is unimportant .

This is a powerful tool to place into the hands of every female and a terrifying prospect for people like football players who are known to be very rich and subject to huge payouts to alleged victims of vague and unprovable tales from the distant past.

As I said, it's of dubious relevance to this thread, but I suppose that once it's caught on as a quick way of screwing money out of footballers or disrupting their ability to play, we could see local club attending females catching on and trying to get a few grand out of Cardiff players. Could that happen , and is this something we should challenge or just another freakish development of a ver sick society that we should just put up with like all the others ?

common sense will tell you that its suspicious...…...when someone is paid 287,000pounds for their silence.

The Judge case in America is troubling to say the least. its not even weather he is guilty or not guilty, but the fact that its being used to try to score political points is abhorrent to be honest.

these things should be settled in court and shouldnt be used as a political pawn

The Judge case in America is troubling to say the least. its not even weather he is guilty or not guilty, but the fact that its being used to try to score political points is abhorrent to be honest.

these things should be settled in court and shouldnt be used as a political pawn

I do agree.....
as for the Ronaldo thing maybe better he went to court 9 years ago

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

Borderline subject in terms of relevance on this board but I think people here will have opinions on the matter.

In recent weeks in the USA we've seen the weaponisation of sex allegations in an attempt to block the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge or delay it in the hope that the mid terms will go the way of the Democrats so they can block any nominee who would stop them destroying the first and second amendments.
Now we see a similarly dubious allegation about Ronaldo from some woman who claims that he raped her in Vegas in 2009. Is she trying to get more money out of him, or acting on behalf of some rival interest or third party who wishes to damage him ?

For about 1300 years we took the view that all criminal allegations should be thoroughly investigated as to whether they were true or concocted, that people who were accused could only be convicted when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , and that we don't generally even try to prosecute on allegations made many years after the alleged crime.

Common sense will tell you that it's suspicious for someone to come up with an allegation of a crime which they didn't bother to report at the time, but complain about years later. ( in the case of the woman in Vegas she did report it at the time but didn't identify Ronaldo as a suspect). Perhaps more importantly, it's impossible to investigate anything years later when memories have faded, forensic evidence is long gone and vital witnesses may be now untraceable or dead. Thus ,any conviction in such cases would be intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the society wide mental illness which currently afflicts us in so many areas of life, is that we must apparently make an exception to this requirement for proper reliable evidence where the alleged victim is female , just in case she finds the whole experience a bit upsetting. The presumption seems to be that no female is capable of lying or imagining anything and so, unlike other crimes,evidentially verifying the truth of the allegation is unimportant .

This is a powerful tool to place into the hands of every female and a terrifying prospect for people like football players who are known to be very rich and subject to huge payouts to alleged victims of vague and unprovable tales from the distant past.

As I said, it's of dubious relevance to this thread, but I suppose that once it's caught on as a quick way of screwing money out of footballers or disrupting their ability to play, we could see local club attending females catching on and trying to get a few grand out of Cardiff players. Could that happen , and is this something we should challenge or just another freakish development of a ver sick society that we should just put up with like all the others ?

Common sense doesn't tell me that a crime not reported at the time is necessarily "suspicious". The situation will be unique, and the reasons for not reporting the incident need to be considered in context of the circumstances and not generalised as you appear to be doing

Of course it's suspicious ! I didn't say it's impossible that there might be some extraordinary reason which explains a delay in complaining, but this would be the exception since most people who suffer a serious crime do so immediately , or at least tell someone else whom they trust about it.
Be that as it may, and whether you might feel sympathetic towards the alleged victim or accept whatever reason they give for taking decades to mention the matter, well it's still impossible to investigate it properly at that stage for the reasons I mentioned above, plus the fact that we can hardly rely upon someone's memory of something so long ago to convict someone.

If you tried to tell the police that Billy Smith burgled your house in 1999 and you'd now like him arrested ,they'd laugh in your face wouldn't they ? Quite rightly so, and for all the reasons I've mentioned here. The difference is that this is a "trendy" issue which seeks to evoke in people a different standard based upon political correctness rather than evidence or truth.

It's hardly the sole example of ridiculous logic in the dumbed down and politically driven nut house which is our current version of a society , but it is a particularly dangerous one and at least worth mentioning even if people are unwilling to take it on board for fear of being seen as unhelpful to one of the special groups accorded automatic victim status by the Islington trendies and completely naive social justice warriors.

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

Borderline subject in terms of relevance on this board but I think people here will have opinions on the matter.

In recent weeks in the USA we've seen the weaponisation of sex allegations in an attempt to block the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge or delay it in the hope that the mid terms will go the way of the Democrats so they can block any nominee who would stop them destroying the first and second amendments.
Now we see a similarly dubious allegation about Ronaldo from some woman who claims that he raped her in Vegas in 2009. Is she trying to get more money out of him, or acting on behalf of some rival interest or third party who wishes to damage him ?

For about 1300 years we took the view that all criminal allegations should be thoroughly investigated as to whether they were true or concocted, that people who were accused could only be convicted when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , and that we don't generally even try to prosecute on allegations made many years after the alleged crime.

Common sense will tell you that it's suspicious for someone to come up with an allegation of a crime which they didn't bother to report at the time, but complain about years later. ( in the case of the woman in Vegas she did report it at the time but didn't identify Ronaldo as a suspect). Perhaps more importantly, it's impossible to investigate anything years later when memories have faded, forensic evidence is long gone and vital witnesses may be now untraceable or dead. Thus ,any conviction in such cases would be intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the society wide mental illness which currently afflicts us in so many areas of life, is that we must apparently make an exception to this requirement for proper reliable evidence where the alleged victim is female , just in case she finds the whole experience a bit upsetting. The presumption seems to be that no female is capable of lying or imagining anything and so, unlike other crimes,evidentially verifying the truth of the allegation is unimportant .

This is a powerful tool to place into the hands of every female and a terrifying prospect for people like football players who are known to be very rich and subject to huge payouts to alleged victims of vague and unprovable tales from the distant past.

As I said, it's of dubious relevance to this thread, but I suppose that once it's caught on as a quick way of screwing money out of footballers or disrupting their ability to play, we could see local club attending females catching on and trying to get a few grand out of Cardiff players. Could that happen , and is this something we should challenge or just another freakish development of a ver sick society that we should just put up with like all the others ?

Common sense doesn't tell me that a crime not reported at the time is necessarily "suspicious". The situation will be unique, and the reasons for not reporting the incident need to be considered in context of the circumstances and not generalised as you appear to be doing

Of course it's suspicious ! I didn't say it's impossible that there might be some extraordinary reason which explains a delay in complaining, but this would be the exception since most people who suffer a serious crime do so immediately , or at least tell someone else whom they trust about it.
Be that as it may, and whether you might feel sympathetic towards the alleged victim or accept whatever reason they give for taking decades to mention the matter, well it's still impossible to investigate it properly at that stage for the reasons I mentioned above, plus the fact that we can hardly rely upon someone's memory of something so long ago to convict someone.

If you tried to tell the police that Billy Smith burgled your house in 1999 and you'd now like him arrested ,they'd laugh in your face wouldn't they ? Quite rightly so, and for all the reasons I've mentioned here. The difference is that this is a "trendy" issue which seeks to evoke in people a different standard based upon political correctness rather than evidence or truth.

It's hardly the sole example of ridiculous logic in the dumbed down and politically driven nut house which is our current version of a society , but it is a particularly dangerous one and at least worth mentioning even if people are unwilling to take it on board for fear of being seen as unhelpful to one of the special groups accorded automatic victim status by the Islington trendies and completely naive social justice warriors.

she did do something immediately..
alleged victim who has had a QUARTER OF A MILLION pay out..?
jeez

.

I like how you've confidently classified this Ronaldo allegation as dubious whilst writing a post condeming judgement before trial.

Make no mistake, I agree with you very much it's wrong and ridiculous that allegations alone can and will tarnish reputations unfairly, and this type of thing can be used as a weapon.

I propose to you that it can go the other way too; fear of unjust backlash can and has occurred against those that have been abused in the past; in fact, I'm sure I read in this particular case that the female in question didn't identify Ronaldo at the time because of the shitstorm that would come her way.

You make a good point in that you're innocent until proven guilty; please remember that it works both ways.

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

I’m pretty sure if you admit to rape you go to prison

Borderline subject in terms of relevance on this board but I think people here will have opinions on the matter.

In recent weeks in the USA we've seen the weaponisation of sex allegations in an attempt to block the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge or delay it in the hope that the mid terms will go the way of the Democrats so they can block any nominee who would stop them destroying the first and second amendments.
Now we see a similarly dubious allegation about Ronaldo from some woman who claims that he raped her in Vegas in 2009. Is she trying to get more money out of him, or acting on behalf of some rival interest or third party who wishes to damage him ?

For about 1300 years we took the view that all criminal allegations should be thoroughly investigated as to whether they were true or concocted, that people who were accused could only be convicted when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , and that we don't generally even try to prosecute on allegations made many years after the alleged crime.

Common sense will tell you that it's suspicious for someone to come up with an allegation of a crime which they didn't bother to report at the time, but complain about years later. ( in the case of the woman in Vegas she did report it at the time but didn't identify Ronaldo as a suspect). Perhaps more importantly, it's impossible to investigate anything years later when memories have faded, forensic evidence is long gone and vital witnesses may be now untraceable or dead. Thus ,any conviction in such cases would be intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the society wide mental illness which currently afflicts us in so many areas of life, is that we must apparently make an exception to this requirement for proper reliable evidence where the alleged victim is female , just in case she finds the whole experience a bit upsetting. The presumption seems to be that no female is capable of lying or imagining anything and so, unlike other crimes,evidentially verifying the truth of the allegation is unimportant .

This is a powerful tool to place into the hands of every female and a terrifying prospect for people like football players who are known to be very rich and subject to huge payouts to alleged victims of vague and unprovable tales from the distant past.

As I said, it's of dubious relevance to this thread, but I suppose that once it's caught on as a quick way of screwing money out of footballers or disrupting their ability to play, we could see local club attending females catching on and trying to get a few grand out of Cardiff players. Could that happen , and is this something we should challenge or just another freakish development of a ver sick society that we should just put up with like all the others ?

Common sense doesn't tell me that a crime not reported at the time is necessarily "suspicious". The situation will be unique, and the reasons for not reporting the incident need to be considered in context of the circumstances and not generalised as you appear to be doing

Of course it's suspicious ! I didn't say it's impossible that there might be some extraordinary reason which explains a delay in complaining, but this would be the exception since most people who suffer a serious crime do so immediately , or at least tell someone else whom they trust about it.
Be that as it may, and whether you might feel sympathetic towards the alleged victim or accept whatever reason they give for taking decades to mention the matter, well it's still impossible to investigate it properly at that stage for the reasons I mentioned above, plus the fact that we can hardly rely upon someone's memory of something so long ago to convict someone.

If you tried to tell the police that Billy Smith burgled your house in 1999 and you'd now like him arrested ,they'd laugh in your face wouldn't they ? Quite rightly so, and for all the reasons I've mentioned here. The difference is that this is a "trendy" issue which seeks to evoke in people a different standard based upon political correctness rather than evidence or truth.

It's hardly the sole example of ridiculous logic in the dumbed down and politically driven nut house which is our current version of a society , but it is a particularly dangerous one and at least worth mentioning even if people are unwilling to take it on board for fear of being seen as unhelpful to one of the special groups accorded automatic victim status by the Islington trendies and completely naive social justice warriors.

Rape is a deeply traumatising and shameful occurance often carried out by people in power. Burglary doesn’t come close in terms of the anguish it causes. I’m assuming your Billy Smith character is an opportunist scrote, not someone who is a pillar of society protected by powerful friends. There would be no obvious reason not to report a burglary, whereas rape could be harder to prove so there’s more of a dilemma built in. I get the feeling that the “trendy” tag you give these situations is clouding your judgement.

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

This isn't the source of a quote directly from CR...

It's KMs version of events

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

I’m pretty sure if you admit to rape you go to prison

in a court of law yes...this admission seems to have come while negotiating a settlement

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

This isn't the source of a quote directly from CR...

It's KMs version of events

Re-read through the Twitter journalist data and there seems just to be a text document as evidence that CR said KM said no and stop, then says these questions and answers don't exist any more... So no longer evidence ?

I like how you've confidently classified this Ronaldo allegation as dubious whilst writing a post condeming judgement before trial.

Make no mistake, I agree with you very much it's wrong and ridiculous that allegations alone can and will tarnish reputations unfairly, and this type of thing can be used as a weapon.

I propose to you that it can go the other way too; fear of unjust backlash can and has occurred against those that have been abused in the past; in fact, I'm sure I read in this particular case that the female in question didn't identify Ronaldo at the time because of the shitstorm that would come her way.

You make a good point in that you're innocent until proven guilty; please remember that it works both ways.

Well dubious is dubious isn't it ? It means questionable and it remains that until such times as it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt as you imply with your expression " judgement before trial ". I therefore see no contradiction in what I said.

I said dubious , not necessarily false . However, I also said that whatever the truth of the matter might be , we cannot at this stage adequately investigate it or safely convict - and this is the result of the fact that, for whatever reason , the matter was not reported whilst forensic and witness evidence could still be found and produced if it did in fact exist in the first place.

Now, it's not true really that it "works both ways" . A person is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent and it for the person making the complaint and the Prosecution if it goes that far to prove it - there is no assumption that an alleged victim is telling the truth and correct in their assertions. They must submit their accusation to due process and convince a court before they are entitled to call the person they are accusing a criminal .

We cannot know the truth of this or any other serious allegation without this process and despite exuses about not coming forward in a timely manner, ( which may or may not be true), we cannot in good conscience by pass this long established safeguard.
Well I know that it is becoming more and more routine to convict people many decades after alleged offences, but that does not justify the practice, which is contrary to 1300 years of Common Law and Usage. Such convictions are not and cannot be safe and in fact I predict numerous successful appeals and a huge scandal about it in a few years time when we are less obsessed with transient political dogmas and perhaps more concerned with Justice.

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

That's just some blibble on Twitter !
Anyone can put anything there. That's NOT a source which anyone could place any weight on. We don't know whether the document is real or not, and in any case it's signed in the clients name by a lawyer by dint of a power of attorney !
The lawyer is signing that he accepts the Compromise Agreement on behalf of his client, not that it's contents are accurate -how could he possibly know that ?
This document, if it exists, is not admissible in criminal proceedings for that and other reasons. It proves only that he paid her to leave him alone and may well have done so to avoid an embarrassing scandal rather than thinking that he couldn't defend it if he had to.
Now, I appreciate that this might not be obvious to anyone but lawyers , but that is exactly why there's a confidentiality clause which prevents it fueling erroneous conclusions by the general public .

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

That's just some blibble on Twitter !
Anyone can put anything there. That's NOT a source which anyone could place any weight on. We don't know whether the document is real or not, and in any case it's signed in the clients name by a lawyer by dint of a power of attorney !
The lawyer is signing that he accepts the Compromise Agreement on behalf of his client, not that it's contents are accurate -how could he possibly know that ?
This document, if it exists, is not admissible in criminal proceedings for that and other reasons. It proves only that he paid her to leave him alone and may well have done so to avoid an embarrassing scandal rather than thinking that he couldn't defend it if he had to.
Now, I appreciate that this might not be obvious to anyone but lawyers , but that is exactly why there's a confidentiality clause which prevents it fueling erroneous conclusions by the general public .

weirdly defensive on this subject mate. why would a leading German news organisation risk wrecking their reputation and being open to a massive law suit, hardly random babble on twitter.

He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.

who's admitted doing what?

Ronaldo when questioned admitted that he continued after she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’.

Your source for this being ?

https://twitter.com/derwinterbach/statu ... 20513?s=21

That's just some blibble on Twitter !
Anyone can put anything there. That's NOT a source which anyone could place any weight on. We don't know whether the document is real or not, and in any case it's signed in the clients name by a lawyer by dint of a power of attorney !
The lawyer is signing that he accepts the Compromise Agreement on behalf of his client, not that it's contents are accurate -how could he possibly know that ?
This document, if it exists, is not admissible in criminal proceedings for that and other reasons. It proves only that he paid her to leave him alone and may well have done so to avoid an embarrassing scandal rather than thinking that he couldn't defend it if he had to.
Now, I appreciate that this might not be obvious to anyone but lawyers , but that is exactly why there's a confidentiality clause which prevents it fueling erroneous conclusions by the general public .

weirdly defensive on this subject mate. why would a leading German news organisation risk wrecking their reputation and being open to a massive law suit, hardly random babble on twitter.

Um, well I'd speculate that it's to make money and it's hardly likely that Ronaldo would want the scandal of a defamation case if he doesn't want the publicity of this woman's claims all over the news. I don't think you'll find that German news organisations are known for their high standards in verifying stories - do you recall the "Hitler Diaries " ? If not I suggest you google it.

And yes I certainly am defensive about the Golden Thread of English Law - innocence until proven guilty . I'm also prone to go onto auto pilot for the accused in fairness. I spent many years in that game on both sides but I prefer the defence because it's more of a challenge - having to work with got you've got against a powerful machine a bit like Sir Neil I suppose.

I don't much like your implication that I'm defensive about rape , by the way but I'll put that down to a misunderstanding on your part about what I'm defending. Oh, and I'm not on Ronaldo's payroll either before you suggest that .

Borderline subject in terms of relevance on this board but I think people here will have opinions on the matter.

In recent weeks in the USA we've seen the weaponisation of sex allegations in an attempt to block the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge or delay it in the hope that the mid terms will go the way of the Democrats so they can block any nominee who would stop them destroying the first and second amendments.
Now we see a similarly dubious allegation about Ronaldo from some woman who claims that he raped her in Vegas in 2009. Is she trying to get more money out of him, or acting on behalf of some rival interest or third party who wishes to damage him ?

For about 1300 years we took the view that all criminal allegations should be thoroughly investigated as to whether they were true or concocted, that people who were accused could only be convicted when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , and that we don't generally even try to prosecute on allegations made many years after the alleged crime.

Common sense will tell you that it's suspicious for someone to come up with an allegation of a crime which they didn't bother to report at the time, but complain about years later. ( in the case of the woman in Vegas she did report it at the time but didn't identify Ronaldo as a suspect). Perhaps more importantly, it's impossible to investigate anything years later when memories have faded, forensic evidence is long gone and vital witnesses may be now untraceable or dead. Thus ,any conviction in such cases would be intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately, one aspect of the society wide mental illness which currently afflicts us in so many areas of life, is that we must apparently make an exception to this requirement for proper reliable evidence where the alleged victim is female , just in case she finds the whole experience a bit upsetting. The presumption seems to be that no female is capable of lying or imagining anything and so, unlike other crimes,evidentially verifying the truth of the allegation is unimportant .

This is a powerful tool to place into the hands of every female and a terrifying prospect for people like football players who are known to be very rich and subject to huge payouts to alleged victims of vague and unprovable tales from the distant past.

As I said, it's of dubious relevance to this thread, but I suppose that once it's caught on as a quick way of screwing money out of footballers or disrupting their ability to play, we could see local club attending females catching on and trying to get a few grand out of Cardiff players. Could that happen , and is this something we should challenge or just another freakish development of a ver sick society that we should just put up with like all the others ?

Common sense doesn't tell me that a crime not reported at the time is necessarily "suspicious". The situation will be unique, and the reasons for not reporting the incident need to be considered in context of the circumstances and not generalised as you appear to be doing

Of course it's suspicious ! I didn't say it's impossible that there might be some extraordinary reason which explains a delay in complaining, but this would be the exception since most people who suffer a serious crime do so immediately , or at least tell someone else whom they trust about it.
Be that as it may, and whether you might feel sympathetic towards the alleged victim or accept whatever reason they give for taking decades to mention the matter, well it's still impossible to investigate it properly at that stage for the reasons I mentioned above, plus the fact that we can hardly rely upon someone's memory of something so long ago to convict someone.

If you tried to tell the police that Billy Smith burgled your house in 1999 and you'd now like him arrested ,they'd laugh in your face wouldn't they ? Quite rightly so, and for all the reasons I've mentioned here. The difference is that this is a "trendy" issue which seeks to evoke in people a different standard based upon political correctness rather than evidence or truth.

It's hardly the sole example of ridiculous logic in the dumbed down and politically driven nut house which is our current version of a society , but it is a particularly dangerous one and at least worth mentioning even if people are unwilling to take it on board for fear of being seen as unhelpful to one of the special groups accorded automatic victim status by the Islington trendies and completely naive social justice warriors.

Rape is a deeply traumatising and shameful occurance often carried out by people in power. Burglary doesn’t come close in terms of the anguish it causes. I’m assuming your Billy Smith character is an opportunist scrote, not someone who is a pillar of society protected by powerful friends. There would be no obvious reason not to report a burglary, whereas rape could be harder to prove so there’s more of a dilemma built in. I get the feeling that the “trendy” tag you give these situations is clouding your judgement.

In fact you make my point , don't you ?
You seem to be quite happy to treat the standards of evidence required differently according to which crime has been committed. You justify this with some emotional description of rape which isn't the issue. Yes it's a serious crime and that's why they can send you to prison for it, but murder for example is also serious and yet no one is suggesting that we drop the requirement for proper evidence for a murder conviction.
Now , I must inform you that burglary is also a serious crime to those who suffer it and an even more serious matter for anyone wrongly convicted of it, which is why we insist upon proper evidence and due process before we find them guilty.

Incidentally, most rapes are not in fact committed by influential people whose powerful friends subsequently protect them from prosecution and I think that it's your judgement which is clouded by the amount of coverage such matters receive. By all means empathise with rape victims, I hope we all do, but in truth it's something which has been happening for thousands of years and isn't treated lightly by the courts, and like all other serious crimes is best addressed by proper investigation and prosecution rather than emotive speeches and virtue signalling.

With regards to Kavanagh it looks to me like it is purely politically motivated by the Democratic Party to stop his induction into the Supreme Court.
The lady cannot tell the fbi what date what time or even what place the alleged sexual assault(not rape) took place 36 years ago despite the trauma of living with it all this time. I note tonight the democrats are saying that the fbi were not given enough time to investigate the case fully but sat on the allegations for some 45 days and even let kavanagh pass the first round of interviews before making the allegation.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of it I believe if anyone on this board had a member of their family accused in the same circumstances that kavanagh is then they would want the matter thrown out by the cps before it even got to court and more than likely the police would dismiss it out of hand if the accuser could not state where and when accurately.
I appreciate she took a lie detector test but none of that evidence or a taped recording has been made available to kavanagh or the fbi and don’t forget the lady believed she was getting full anonymity and that she would never be identified in public let alone appear in front of a senate hearing. Seems to me two peoples reputations being sold down the river to stop a man who has very strong views on gun control being elected to the Supreme Court.
Just to clarify that a lie detector is inadmissible in this country as it can be clearly manipulated by using various methods. I once saw cris angel show how he could use his mind to trick the lie detector by answering every question wrong bug getting the all clear from the machine.
I would make it clear that my own views are that a woman’s body belongs purely to her and when she says no it’s no and if she doesn’t want to carry a child that’s also her decision to make. Unfortunately the Harry Weinstein issue has turned America into a country where if a woman makes an accusation going back 36 years then the man is consider in the eyes of the public to be guilty and the burden of proof is on him to prove his innocence instead of being on the accuser and prosecutors to prove his guilt.

One for, initially, the prosecutors to decide if there is a case and, if so, for a judge and jury to decide on guilt. We don't have any evidence either way so we're not in a position to denigrate either party at this stage.

However, wouldn't it be nice if we were all in the position of being able to pay someone £280K to keep quiet about something that didn't happen

As for the debacle of the judicial appointment in the USA, that's exactly why such appointments should be completely removed from the political process as in this country.

One for, initially, the prosecutors to decide if there is a case and, if so, for a judge and jury to decide on guilt. We don't have any evidence either way so we're not in a position to denigrate either party at this stage.

However, wouldn't it be nice if we were all in the position of being able to pay someone £280K to keep quiet about something that didn't happen

As for the debacle of the judicial appointment in the USA, that's exactly why such appointments should be completely removed from the political process as in this country.

the money means nothing. even someone 100% innocent might easily do something like this to not potentially put his chances in the hands of strangers and have his name dragged through the mud. Its not any indication whatsoever of guilt

I'd shag Ronaldo for 250k

One for, initially, the prosecutors to decide if there is a case and, if so, for a judge and jury to decide on guilt. We don't have any evidence either way so we're not in a position to denigrate either party at this stage.

However, wouldn't it be nice if we were all in the position of being able to pay someone £280K to keep quiet about something that didn't happen

As for the debacle of the judicial appointment in the USA, that's exactly why such appointments should be completely removed from the political process as in this country.

the money means nothing. even someone 100% innocent might easily do something like this to not potentially put his chances in the hands of strangers and have his name dragged through the mud. Its not any indication whatsoever of guilt

Quite right. I once sold a car and the buyer incurred several hundred pounds worth of tickets . It was nothing to do with me and I certainly could have proved that but I paid the tickets to avoid the embarrassment of appearing before the magistrates as a defendant.
I note this morning that Nike are reconsidering a £270 MILLION sponsorship deal with Ronaldo because of this ALLEGATION . This is my point ,you see, that people who may be entirely innocent can suffer ruinous consequences over allegations without the formality of any proof or conviction.
This being so, we empower every female in the world to demand money, override democratic processes or change the path of history itself by making allegations of this nature.

There is a proper recourse for genuine victims of crime and no real excuse for those who want to do it another way.

I think I spoke of a burglar called Billy Smith or something in relation to the fact that his victims would come forward immediately rather than wait 30 years. Well to develop that one , if the victim had Mr Smith beaten up or demanded money from him instead of reporting him to the police , then he'd be the one in trouble. This is obvious, but somehow the issue is fudged when we speak of rape , and that is more to do with identity politics and the victim culture than it is with Justice or common sense.

I do like the way that Billy Smith, who was an instant and random invention on my part to make a point has been mentioned now several times in here. Digressing from the issue, I think we should develop the character a bit and maybe eventually give him his own thread. Have you had any trouble from this man, and what can we do to bring him back into the fold ?

One for, initially, the prosecutors to decide if there is a case and, if so, for a judge and jury to decide on guilt. We don't have any evidence either way so we're not in a position to denigrate either party at this stage.

However, wouldn't it be nice if we were all in the position of being able to pay someone £280K to keep quiet about something that didn't happen

As for the debacle of the judicial appointment in the USA, that's exactly why such appointments should be completely removed from the political process as in this country.

the money means nothing. even someone 100% innocent might easily do something like this to not potentially put his chances in the hands of strangers and have his name dragged through the mud. Its not any indication whatsoever of guilt

Quite right. I once sold a car and the buyer incurred several hundred pounds worth of tickets . It was nothing to do with me and I certainly could have proved that but I paid the tickets to avoid the embarrassment of appearing before the magistrates as a defendant.
I note this morning that Nike are reconsidering a £270 MILLION sponsorship deal with Ronaldo because of this ALLEGATION . This is my point ,you see, that people who may be entirely innocent can suffer ruinous consequences over allegations without the formality of any proof or conviction.
This being so, we empower every female in the world to demand money, override democratic processes or change the path of history itself by making allegations of this nature.

There is a proper recourse for genuine victims of crime and no real excuse for those who want to do it another way.

I think I spoke of a burglar called Billy Smith or something in relation to the fact that his victims would come forward immediately rather than wait 30 years. Well to develop that one , if the victim had Mr Smith beaten up or demanded money from him instead of reporting him to the police , then he'd be the one in trouble. This is obvious, but somehow the issue is fudged when we speak of rape , and that is more to do with identity politics and the victim culture than it is with Justice or common sense.

I do like the way that Billy Smith, who was an instant and random invention on my part to make a point has been mentioned now several times in here. Digressing from the issue, I think we should develop the character a bit and maybe eventually give him his own thread. Have you had any trouble from this man, and what can we do to bring him back into the fold ?

Firstly you jumped to the conclusion that I've said that the money indicated guilt. Read it again. I haven't.

But what people might perceive is that he isn't confident that he can't raise a case that stops his accuser proving beyond [b]all reasonable doubt[/b] that he is guilty. Don't forget that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that he is guilty not for his defence to prove that he isn't.

Just one final point. Society is a much different place in the last 2-3 years, thankfully, where people of all persuasions feel much more confident in speaking up against historical abuse whereas when the incidents actually happened the likelihood is that they wouldn't have been taken seriously.

Did the passage of time mean that the abuses of the Catholic clergy, Saville, Cyril Smith, Rochdale (where the girls weren't initially believed even when they did raise it), Gary Glitter, etc., didn't actually happen ? Clearly not, therefore probably best to wait for the trail on this one before merely be-littling it just because it wasn't fully reported at the time.