Ex-Tory MP Andrew Griffiths found to have raped wife

[rjfp1962]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffo...

[GC8]

The title is misleading, isnt it?

[768]

Reading around it, it sounds like a judge in some sort of private family court decided he probably did. But he's not been convicted of rape.

Pretty unpleasant all the same.

[768]

MrBogSmith said:

What's misleading about it?

Presumably that he's not had a rape trial to be found to have raped anyone.

[Peter911]

If it had been an ex Labour MP would you have felt the urge to start a thread on it?

[Biggy Stardust]

MrBogSmith said:

GC8 said:

The title is misleading, isnt it?

What's misleading about it?

It suggests a trial & conviction when there was no such thing.

[richardxjr]

Same as BBC news etc headline

Fair.

[Lotobear]

Mr Griffiths, a former MP for the Staffordshire town, used "coercive and controlling behaviour".

Now then, that approach sounds familiar doesn't it?

[Randy Winkman]

Peter911 said:

If it had been an ex Labour MP would you have felt the urge to start a thread on it?

He'd have struggled to get in ahead of the rest of PH.

[768]

MrBogSmith said:

768 said:

MrBogSmith said:

What's misleading about it?

Presumably that he's not had a rape trial to be found to have raped anyone.

Hence why it doesn't say 'convicted'.

He has, on the balance of probabilities, been found to have raped her. Therefore 'found' to have.

Found to have committed a crime, without a conviction... I think misleading is a fair call.

[bitchstewie]

Is it better if it comes from the Telgraph?

Former Tory minister Andrew Griffiths raped and physically abused wife, judge finds

How about focusing on his behaviour towards his wife rather than how unfair all the headlines are on the poor chap or it's because he's a Conservative.

Christ.

[frisbee]

768 said:

Found to have committed a crime, without a conviction... I think misleading is a fair call.

Whatever you say Boris!

[Earthdweller]

GC8 said:

The title is misleading, isnt it?

I think it is

In a civil court, not a criminal court he has on the balance of probabilities, in the opinion of the judge coerced someone to engage in sexual activity and potentially had intercourse without consent

Some might say that is splitting hairs .. however there is a massive difference between a criminal conviction, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he forced vaginal intercourse, heard in front of a jury in a Crown Court and a family court judge saying he believed he coerced sexual activity

Whether this subsequently leads to a criminal allegation and trial remains to be seen

But I think using the term “rape” is potentially misleading as he hasn’t been convicted of that crime

Not that in I’m in anyway condoning or excusing his behaviour but I think words so emotive should be used sparingly

[otolith]

Headline should say "...to have probably raped wife".

[silentbrown]

Earthdweller said:

...But I think using the term “rape” is potentially misleading as he hasn’t been convicted of that crime

It's there in black and white in the judge's findings.

[bitchstewie]

silentbrown said:

It's there in black and white in the judge's findings.

Quite.

They're here if anyone wants to read up on how the judge found as they did.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/1...

[Randy Winkman]

Bleeding hearts?

Apologists?

Something like that.

[Earthdweller]

MrBogSmith said:

Earthdweller said:

Some might say that is splitting hairs .. however there is a massive difference between a criminal conviction, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he forced vaginal intercourse, heard in front of a jury in a Crown Court and a family court judge saying he believed he coerced sexual activity.

Why would it need to be 'forced' in the CC, yet 'coerced' in the family court? Why can't it also be coerced for both?

The variable is the threshold required to draw a conclusion, not the definition or circumstances. As per the circumstances here:



How would you describe it if not rape?

"Sex without consent"?

"Sleepy sex"?

It’s is NOT a criminal conviction for rape, describe it however you like but it isn’t rape

Different courts, different rules and evidence thresholds

Describing someone as being a rapist when the offence hasn’t been proved … is misleading.

[bitchstewie]

The court published a judgement saying it found that he'd raped his wife.

There's only so many ways to report that.

Bit more info here.

Disgraced former MP loses appeal against publication of ‘abuse’ ruling

[768]

MrBogSmith said:

It's been proven as more likely than not to have occurred.

i.e. It hasn't been proven.