Sunday Times & C4 due to drop a big story [Russell Brand]

[youngsyr]

Oakey said:

So when I said "flogged by a roadman" you imagined what exactly? A road worker suddenly deciding to whip you on the hard shoulder of the M25?

Funnily enough, I pictured a man who repairs a road flogging a prone victim on the back with some sort of wooden stick, because that's precisely what you wrote.

What did you actually mean?

[Oakey]

isaldiri said:

98elise said:

I have been a victim of minor crimes that I haven't even reported to the police. The crimes took place and I was the victim. How is there any doubt?

There is if the person you are accusing of a crime denies it happened I suppose then it becomes a question of who to believe when it's your word against that person.

Again, only relevant when trying to convict someone in court. If 98elise is a victim of a crime, knows who did it and they get away with it, he's still a victim.

When did some posters set the bar as to whether a crime has been committed at 'requires outcome of a trial".

[Oakey]

youngsyr said:

Oakey said:

So when I said "flogged by a roadman" you imagined what exactly? A road worker suddenly deciding to whip you on the hard shoulder of the M25?

Funnily enough, I pictured a man who repairs a road flogging a prone victim on the back with some sort of wooden stick, because that's precisely what you wrote.

What did you actually mean?

What was he doing prior to this flogging, digging that hole you're in?

[youngsyr]

Oakey said:

youngsyr said:

Oakey said:

So when I said "flogged by a roadman" you imagined what exactly? A road worker suddenly deciding to whip you on the hard shoulder of the M25?

Funnily enough, I pictured a man who repairs a road flogging a prone victim on the back with some sort of wooden stick, because that's precisely what you wrote.

What did you actually mean?

What was he doing prior to this flogging, digging that hole you're in?

It's your imaginary story, you tell me!

[isaldiri]

Oakey said:

Again, only relevant when trying to convict someone in court. If 98elise is a victim of a crime, knows who did it and they get away with it, he's still a victim.

When did some posters set the bar as to whether a crime has been committed at 'requires outcome of a trial".

And what if someone is falsely stating a crime was committed which he witnessed or was party to? Not saying of course it applies to 98elise but it's a academic question - ie whether or not a crime actually did take place in the first place. it's not always quite so clear someone is a victim of a crime just because they say so.

[SWoll]

Oakey said:

When did some posters set the bar as to whether a crime has been committed at 'requires outcome of a trial".

In the case of an allegation being made with no additional witnesses or evidence, and that allegation being denied by the person being accused, where would you set the bar?

At this point a crime has been alleged, none of us have any idea whether it was committed or not other than personal feelings about the accused being a 'wrong un'.

[Oakey]

SWoll said:

In the case of an allegation being made with no additional witnesses or evidence, and that allegation being denied by the person being accused, where would you set the bar?

At this point a crime has been alleged, none of us have any idea whether it was committed or not other than personal feelings about the accused being a 'wrong un'.

So, Savile is innocent in your eyes then? Or do you use what you know about him to form an opinion of him?

[SWoll]

Oakey said:

SWoll said:

In the case of an allegation being made with no additional witnesses or evidence, and that allegation being denied by the person being accused, where would you set the bar?

At this point a crime has been alleged, none of us have any idea whether it was committed or not other than personal feelings about the accused being a 'wrong un'.

So, Savile is innocent in your eyes then? Or do you use what you know about him to form an opinion of him?

Where did I say anything about guilt or innocence? You're the one making that judgement by stating that a crime has been committed in this case rather than alleged.

In the case of Saville it would appear that there is a huge amount of evidence and the conclusion of a police enquiry was that he was a sexual predator who preyed on children and subsequent compensation from his estate was paid to victims. There was also a statement from the UK Government apologizing to victims.

[Oakey]

SWoll said:

Where did I say anything about guilt or innocence? You're the one making that judgement by stating that a crime has been committed in this case rather than alleged.

No, this entire exchange was in response to someone saying "they are not victims until it has been proven". Victims of a crime are victims regardless of whether it's been proven or not. To suggest someone who was raped or physically assaulted but didn't report it isn't a victim until a court says they are is nonsense.

[98elise]

Oakey said:

isaldiri said:

98elise said:

I have been a victim of minor crimes that I haven't even reported to the police. The crimes took place and I was the victim. How is there any doubt?

There is if the person you are accusing of a crime denies it happened I suppose then it becomes a question of who to believe when it's your word against that person.

Again, only relevant when trying to convict someone in court. If 98elise is a victim of a crime, knows who did it and they get away with it, he's still a victim.

When did some posters set the bar as to whether a crime has been committed at 'requires outcome of a trial".

More to the point I have no idea who did it (a couple of minor thefts), and didn't bother reporting it because it wouldn't be investigated and I wasn't claiming on my insurance,

Similarly my brother had a couple of tyres slashed in France. Again he was the victim of a crime but simply took it on the chin and got them replaced. It doesn't mean he wasn't a victim of a crime.

If you do report a crime the police don't investigate do those crimes get left off the crime stats because nobody has been convicted?

Even if someone is identified, goes to court, a gets not guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime didn't take place, and there wasn't a victim.

[KAgantua]

zzzzz

[Unreal]

98elise said:

Oakey said:

isaldiri said:

98elise said:

I have been a victim of minor crimes that I haven't even reported to the police. The crimes took place and I was the victim. How is there any doubt?

There is if the person you are accusing of a crime denies it happened I suppose then it becomes a question of who to believe when it's your word against that person.

Again, only relevant when trying to convict someone in court. If 98elise is a victim of a crime, knows who did it and they get away with it, he's still a victim.

When did some posters set the bar as to whether a crime has been committed at 'requires outcome of a trial".

More to the point I have no idea who did it (a couple of minor thefts), and didn't bother reporting it because it wouldn't be investigated and I wasn't claiming on my insurance,

Similarly my brother had a couple of tyres slashed in France. Again he was the victim of a crime but simply took it on the chin and got them replaced. It doesn't mean he wasn't a victim of a crime.

If you do report a crime the police don't investigate do those crimes get left off the crime stats because nobody has been convicted?

Even if someone is identified, goes to court, a gets not guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime didn't take place, and there wasn't a victim.

It might. Sometimes the allegation is proven to be false, in which case there wasn't a victim

[SWoll]

Oakey said:

SWoll said:

Where did I say anything about guilt or innocence? You're the one making that judgement by stating that a crime has been committed in this case rather than alleged.

No, this entire exchange was in response to someone saying "they are not victims until it has been proven". Victims of a crime are victims regardless of whether it's been proven or not. To suggest someone who was raped or physically assaulted but didn't report it isn't a victim until a court says they are is nonsense.

They are "alleged victims" in circumstances where no evidence, witnesses or confession is provided. To call them victims automatically assumes the guilt of the other party, which is exactly what the highlighted sentence confirms is your view.

If you look at all of the recent media coverage it uses the terms 'accuser' or 'alleged victim'. Perhaps you should do the same?

Unreal said:

It might. Sometimes the allegation is proven to be false, in which case there wasn't a victim

In those circumstances the person being accused is the victim

Edited by SWoll on Wednesday 8th November 12:04

[Oakey]

SWoll said:

They are "alleged victims" in circumstances where no evidence, witnesses or confession is provided. To call them victims automatically assumes the guilt of the other party, which is exactly what the highlighted sentence confirms is your view.

If you look at all of the recent media coverage it uses the terms 'accuser' or 'alleged victim'. Perhaps you should do the same?

If someone punches you in the face and breaks your nose and there are no witnesses, no CCTV and the person that did it was wearing a mask, are you a victim or not? Do you need a court to tell you that you're a victim?

Now imagine you went to the police and they had your mentality

"I've been assaulted"

"Where's your evidence?'

"Well, I've got a broken nose and two black eyes..."

"That's evidence of a broken nose and two black eyes, not evidence of how they came about. Any witnesses?"

"No"

"CCTV?'

"No"

"Did you at least see this alleged attacker?"

"Well, he was wearing a mask..."

"So you don't know who it was?'

"Well, no.."

"How do we know this really happened?"

"Erm... look at my face!"

"You could have tripped..."

[Unreal]

SWoll said:

Oakey said:

SWoll said:

Where did I say anything about guilt or innocence? You're the one making that judgement by stating that a crime has been committed in this case rather than alleged.

No, this entire exchange was in response to someone saying "they are not victims until it has been proven". Victims of a crime are victims regardless of whether it's been proven or not. To suggest someone who was raped or physically assaulted but didn't report it isn't a victim until a court says they are is nonsense.

They are "alleged victims" in circumstances where no evidence, witnesses or confession is provided. To call them victims automatically assumes the guilt of the other party, which is exactly what the highlighted sentence confirms is your view.

If you look at all of the recent media coverage it uses the terms 'accuser' or 'alleged victim'. Perhaps you should do the same?

Unreal said:

It might. Sometimes the allegation is proven to be false, in which case there wasn't a victim

In those circumstances the person being accused is the victim

Edited by SWoll on Wednesday 8th November 12:04

Of course! So you could end up with two victims in the same place - the accused and the accuser and they swap places? It's good this, isn't it?

[youngsyr]

Oakey said:

SWoll said:

They are "alleged victims" in circumstances where no evidence, witnesses or confession is provided. To call them victims automatically assumes the guilt of the other party, which is exactly what the highlighted sentence confirms is your view.

If you look at all of the recent media coverage it uses the terms 'accuser' or 'alleged victim'. Perhaps you should do the same?

If someone punches you in the face and breaks your nose and there are no witnesses, no CCTV and the person that did it was wearing a mask, are you a victim or not? Do you need a court to tell you that you're a victim?

Now imagine you went to the police and they had your mentality

"I've been assaulted"

"Where's your evidence?'

"Well, I've got a broken nose and two black eyes..."

"That's evidence of a broken nose and two black eyes, not evidence of how they came about. Any witnesses?"

"No"

"CCTV?'

"No"

"Did you at least see this alleged attacker?"

"Well, he was wearing a mask..."

"So you don't know who it was?'

"Well, no.."

"How do we know this really happened?"

"Erm... look at my face!"

"You could have tripped..."

More idiocy - it is the Police's job to investigate allegations of criminal activity, not decide guilt.

[Castrol for a knave]

I think there is a confusion between the common usage of the word victim and the legal interpretation.

Strictly speaking, "victim" presupposes that guilt has been found, whereas in reality until such time, they are making the accusation that they have been the victim of a crime.

Victim is the general usage but I do think that care has to be taken not to infer guilt until the court has decided such.

[iphonedyou]

Castrol for a knave said:

I think there is a confusion between the common usage of the word victim and the legal interpretation.

Strictly speaking, "victim" presupposes that guilt has been found, whereas in reality until such time, they are making the accusation that they have been the victim of a crime.

Victim is the general usage but I do think that care has to be taken not to infer guilt until the court has decided such.

Imply, surely.

[Oakey]

SWoll said:

In those circumstances the person being accused is the victim

Edited by SWoll on Wednesday 8th November 12:04

So you accept that the person making a false allegation is committing a crime at the point they make the false allegation?

[Graveworm]

Unreal said:

98elise said:

Oakey said:

isaldiri said:

98elise said:

I have been a victim of minor crimes that I haven't even reported to the police. The crimes took place and I was the victim. How is there any doubt?

There is if the person you are accusing of a crime denies it happened I suppose then it becomes a question of who to believe when it's your word against that person.

Again, only relevant when trying to convict someone in court. If 98elise is a victim of a crime, knows who did it and they get away with it, he's still a victim.

When did some posters set the bar as to whether a crime has been committed at 'requires outcome of a trial".

More to the point I have no idea who did it (a couple of minor thefts), and didn't bother reporting it because it wouldn't be investigated and I wasn't claiming on my insurance,

Similarly my brother had a couple of tyres slashed in France. Again he was the victim of a crime but simply took it on the chin and got them replaced. It doesn't mean he wasn't a victim of a crime.

If you do report a crime the police don't investigate do those crimes get left off the crime stats because nobody has been convicted?

Even if someone is identified, goes to court, a gets not guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime didn't take place, and there wasn't a victim.

It might. Sometimes the allegation is proven to be false, in which case there wasn't a victim

Whether there is a victim or not is simply a matter of fact same as any other fact. The courts the police etc may try to establish the facts and apply the law but whatever they determine the facts are unchanged. Proven one way or another is just part of the process.