- This topic has 84 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hancock wanted to do Shakespeare , the public didn’t want that , they wanted Hancocks half hour
I’m a bit late to the discussion but have to disagree with this:
” Newspapers don’t give a **** whether it’s true or not, so long as they can
get their “scandal” story out first.”Wwll, strictly speaking it’s true but “Don’t Care was made to care” by the threat of litigation and this also explains why victims don’t go to the police or why if they do, charges aren’t brought by one person.
Trial by media is obviously not ideal but it’s the only way to get to court in these cases. By nature, accusations of sexual assault when the victim is an adult often come down to he said/she said. The woman in America went to a rape crisis centre but these days even quite severe sexual injuries can be explained away by “It was all consensual and she liked it rough” – see wecantconsenttothis.uk for some examples. The boasting on radio and TV could probably be waved away as “locker room talk” and “banter” if only one individual complains.
So in this type of case, you need weight of numbers- like the famous Bill Cosby “He said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said…” headline- to illustrate the pattern of behaviour. The only way to achieve those numbers is to gather up a few quietly and get them to commit to talking about it, with each individual having the security of knowing they have a very large and expensive newspaper legal team protecting them which they could never in a million years afford alone. That’s a must if a big star is threatening to financially destroy you and crush your career under his cuban heel like a bug I would have thought. Then you get more numbers by making it public and the sleepers who have had to quietly and helplessly watch alone as their abuser lords it around for years realise that they are not isolated and they might achieve together what they could not do alone.
Guessing of course, but all contributors here are men. Including me. There is a powerful argument that we do not know the half of it as we all have a predisposition, inevitably. That does matter. This does not mean that we cannot empathise or try to take the correct, fair and just line.
Excellent points have been made about the deporbaly low level of prosecutions for rape. The reasons for that a multiple, but I doubt that there is a concerted attempt by those who hold the reins of power to address it. No quick fixes there as the odds are stacked against a complainant and appear to continue to be so – disclosure of email history, etc.
The question of why a woman does not go to the police when she has been raped has an easy answer: she does not want to put herself through a mangle of unkonwn proportions for an uncertain outcome. So it is crass to say that women should just go to the police. When I was last involved in this area, it could, and often did, take until the next day to get a nominated doctor from Devon to examine a woman who had alleged rape in Cornwall.
In terms of going to the Press and the press in general, there is a good article in the Guardian (though I see there are some here who dislike the Guardian’s political stance) which explains exactly how difficult it is to bring these abusive men to account. (I agree that the Guardian, along with all the other media, played down the seriousness of the Sachs affair. However, there has been a recognition of that, certainly by Marina Hyde, who found herself guilty of doing so.)
Brand has clearly joined the fringes of the Icke brigade, too, with his conspiracy theories. I remember as far back as 2014, he said that he had an open mind about who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He claimed there were links between Bush and Bin Laden. Always the self publicist, Brand.
If he has to account for his reckless behaviour towards women (he more or less glorifies in that) which went over the lawful line and is found guilty, it will be a significant inroad into the mass of defences that the rich rely on to protect them from the consequences of their behaviour (in this case towards women).
A rape case is a horrendous experience for the victim; ‘The complainant had to spend eight days in the witness box, being cross-examined by four sets of barristers, all men. Her bloodied thong was passed to the jury for examination.’ https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/04/rugby-rape-trial-ireland-belfast-case Perhaps the only way they can get justice is via the media.
The he said/she said is a problem in an individual case unless there is strong
forensic medical reports which back up the complainer. However, the he says/she says
goes out the window if there are several credible witnesses telling a similar story.
They lend corroboration to one another and without 2 witnesses viewing the alleged
event, the witnesses acting together are seen as sufficient evidence to convict. It’s
called the Moorov Doctrine.I see the ex-boxer Glenn McCrory was on trial for alleged sexual assault earlier this week.
According to the newspapers, the “case” against him, if it can be described as such, is he called three young women “pet” (McCrory is from the North East, where the word is commonly used) and he touched one of them on the elbow.
The jury deliberated for 90 minutes before returning a unanimous not guilty verdict. I wonder what they talked about for the other 89 minutes?
If the reporting of the case is accurate, you really have to wonder which genius in the Crown Prosecution Service decided it should go to court. If I had been the judge, I would have chucked the case out.
The jury system appeared to do its job perfectly well here. But would Mr McCrory have got the same verdict from judges who may be put under pressure to secure more convictions?
I had not heard about that but it does appear to be a weak case at best from what I have now read. If we have the full facts then you do have to wonder what the CPS was thinking. Waste of the court’s time and money as well of course, they could have been hearing something else instead. There’s a huge backlog out there as I understand it.
Agree guys, a complete waste of money and court time. Judges aren’t put under
pressure to secure more convictions, and it wouldn’t have taken 90 mins.I call loads of girls Pet , I’m not great at remembering names , Barbara Windsor called everyone darling for the same reason ….. the world’s gone mad , soon people will be signing contracts before having sex ….
A lot of work places now, mainly the corporate jungles look down on you complimenting anyone whether male or female for their appearance. For example if you felt someone was looking nice today and said so this can be deemed harassment, world is crazy.
The more I know the less I understand.
Until Russel Brand has been convicted of anything a lot of you in this thread ought to give your heads a good wobble!
He’s clearly a promiscuous so and so through his own admission. And engages in some sexual activity that many peoples toes would curl up at.
And undoubtedly at times used his fame and money to get women to sleep with him.
None of which is illegal. Just because his behaviour doesn’t fit with yours about what is fit and proper does not make him a rapist.
If I was a victim of his I wouldn’t have waited x amount of years before going to seek justice through the channels which can serve justice. This trial by media is only ever going to lead to accusations of seemingly trying to be financially rewarded for their accounts of things.
A woman sleeping with someone one night and then regretting it x amount of years later or being handed an opportunity to recount it for financial gain does not make him a rapist.
As far as I’m aware the police haven’t even been notified of any allegations?
Perhaps this is partly why the conviction for rape stats are so low! Regret is not the same as rape!
‘None of which is illegal. Just because his behaviour doesn’t fit with yours about what is fit and proper does not make him a rapist.’
Couldn’t care less what consensual activities he or anyone else gets up to.
‘If I was a victim of his I wouldn’t have waited x amount of years before going to seek justice through the channels which can serve justice. This trial by media is only ever going to lead to accusations of seemingly trying to be financially rewarded for their accounts of things.’
There are plenty of reasons why they haven’t gone to the police before in this very thread.
‘A woman sleeping with someone one night and then regretting it x amount of years later or being handed an opportunity to recount it for financial gain does not make him a rapist.’
Who said anything about regret? One of them visited a rape crisis centre the same day. As for money, how much have his accusers been paid for their testimony?
‘As far as I’m aware the police haven’t even been notified of any allegations?’
Two separate forces have now.
‘Perhaps this is partly why the conviction for rape stats are so low! Regret is not the same as rape!’
Again who said anything about regret? You can’t possibly know.
If, and we don’t know this yet, the allegations are as described then he would appear to be guilty of rape. If he’s done nothing wrong then I would assume he can sue The Sunday Times and Channel 4 for quite a hefty defamation claim given how much this is costing him. That would result in various evidence being heard in court on both sides. Does he want that? We shall see. The ST and C4 must feel they have strong evidence with which to defend themselves.
I wasn’t aware of the rape allegations being made to the police.
Given this I think it’s wise that we all allow the police to do their job before commenting further.
A trial by media has already taken place and too many have already decided he’s guilty.
I personally feel the BBC are forever looking to vilify the white heterosexual male for no other reason than that they feel the white heterosexual male is part of some evil patriarchy hell bent on suppressing and discriminating against women.
I’ve stopped reading their website due to the amount of vitriol directed at men in article after article. It’s not surprising they’re one of the ringleaders on the bandwagon of attempting to paint brand as a serial sex offender.
“I personally feel the BBC are forever looking to vilify the white heterosexual male for no
other reason than that they feel the white heterosexual male is part of some evil patriarchy
hell bent on suppressing and discriminating against women.”I find that a strange comment to make TC, perhaps it says more about your viewpoint than the BBC.
Allegations of rape or sexual abuse are nearly always against men because it is nearly always men
who commit them. The more you are in the media or in a powerful position, the more it will get
picked up by the media. Powerful men such as CEO’s of companies, of which the great majority in
this country are white, the population of England and Wales being over 80% white, are more in a
position to abuse their position. The Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Eptein’s of this world or the
British companies in the limelight at the moment, such as Abercrombie and Fitch (not proven) are
always going to be highlighted. There are people in power who abuse that position.I’m pretty sure
your black, asian or jewish communities suffer more daily abuse than, as you put the “white hetrosexual
males”. It doesn’t always make the same level of scandal in the media’s eyes.You might not like that Russell Brand seems to be in the highlights, but just as in the case against
Weinstein, it brought forward witness who were previously scared to come forward. If the same happens
in the Brand case then the media may feel that they have done their bit by bringing unreported issues
to light. Time will tell if they were right to do so.The former A&F CEO is legally married to a woman but is described as having a male partner in the documentary and the alleged abuse was all against men. So much for the assertion that the BBC is ‘forever vilifying white heterosexual men’.
I’d be interested to see the ‘article after article’ where this occurs. There must be numerous examples if it’s true.
I am no great defender of the BBC (I criticise it in this very thread) but the idea that it’s got some anti white heterosexual man agenda is far wide of the mark IMO.
I enjoyed briefly working for the BBC on Saturdays on Grandstand in the late 1980s/early 1990s.
It was everything I imagined it to be at the time and I got a buzz out of walking from White City tube to the entrance, to the studio and also to the legendary canteen Terry Wogan used to joke about but was actually very good and great value for money.
I walked past the garden where they buried the Blue Peter Year 2000 time capsule in 1972 (when I was nine and they specifically referred to any 9yo viewer being 37 when they dug it up) and also saw parts of the building I’d seen used as outside broadcast shots for early Doctor Who episodes.
It seems a very different BBC now – John Inverdale said exactly that to me when I met him in a box at Kempton a couple of Christmases – but then it’s a different world.
IIRC John once got into a bit of bother saying things I doubt any BBC broadcaster would dream of saying in 2023.
Different valid systems, and probably a fair bit of positive gender and racial discrimination to offset the male white dominance of the past.
But the main reason I don’t watch it any more is that, while it was once proud to be a cut above ITV, it has dumbed down to the commercial broadcaster’s level, rendering of unwatchable for me.
I don’t want an “Ant & Dec” level take on literally everything, thank you very much.
But I don’t think the BBC has it in for white males as such – it still employs plenty of them.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.