Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:45 am
Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:49 am
Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:11 am
Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:34 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote: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 ?
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:07 pm
BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:09 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote: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 ?
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:09 pm
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:23 pm
paulh_85 wrote: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
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:19 pm
paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:He’s already admitted doing it in the past how people are looking past this is astonishing.
who's admitted doing what?
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:35 pm
BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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’.
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm
Cardiff dyskinesia wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote: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
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:58 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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 ?
Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:38 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:Cardiff dyskinesia wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote: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.
Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:55 pm
Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:08 pm
BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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
Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:19 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:Cardiff dyskinesia wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote: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.
Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:19 pm
BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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
Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:21 pm
Llan_Blue wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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
Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:28 pm
BrightBlueFuture wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:33 pm
G3vans wrote: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.
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:45 pm
BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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
Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:00 pm
SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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 .
Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:08 am
BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote:paulh_85 wrote:BluebirdWhitchurch wrote: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.
Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:30 am
Cardiff dyskinesia wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote:Cardiff dyskinesia wrote:SirJimmySchoular wrote: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.
Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:10 am
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:45 am
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:58 am
piledriver64 wrote: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.
Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:34 am
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:27 am
paulh_85 wrote:piledriver64 wrote: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
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:56 am
SirJimmySchoular wrote:paulh_85 wrote:piledriver64 wrote: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 ?