£80000 for civil rape conviction
Discussion
xjay1337 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
xjay1337 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BobSaunders said:
Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly.
What an utter scumbag. In my world, that would have been enough to put him behind bars for a couple of years. Sounds like that was the only thing that kept him out of jail !!!!!!
Secretly filming someone having sex is a
ish thing to do. What a fking loser. Oakey said:
singlecoil said:
Filming myself having sex with someone is not something that I would normally consider (due to my not wanting my techniques to become common knowledge) but I must say it sounds like excellent insurance against possible false allegations.
Only if you get consent to film beforehand. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-man-who-secret...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
xjay1337 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
xjay1337 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BobSaunders said:
Saving grace.. one of the lads in his excitement of having a threesome videoed the whole thing secretly.
What an utter scumbag. In my world, that would have been enough to put him behind bars for a couple of years. Sounds like that was the only thing that kept him out of jail !!!!!!
Secretly filming someone having sex is a
ish thing to do. What a fking loser. But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
768 said:
So we should give it the same punishment as falsely accusing someone of rape.
Who said that. But both should carry a custodial sentence. singlecoil said:
xjay1337 said:
Not disagreeing with you.
But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
I was wondering about that too.But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
Both are vile. Most people who video stuff like that end up sharing it and that can ruin someone's life, just like a rape or a false rape claim.
Imagine if it was your daughter, or wife (filmed by an previous partner), whose sex life was all over the internet.
To quote my old mum....they should lock him up and throw the key at him!
(but mum, then he'll just let himself out.)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
singlecoil said:
xjay1337 said:
Not disagreeing with you.
But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
I was wondering about that too.But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
Both are vile. Most people who video stuff like that end up sharing it and that can ruin someone's life, just like a rape or a false rape claim.
Imagine if it was your daughter, or wife (filmed by an previous partner), whose sex life was all over the internet.
To quote my old mum....they should lock him up and throw the key at him!
(but mum, then he'll just let himself out.)
To me everyone has sex and I couldn't care if someone filmed me. The whole reason it's viewed badly is because people are ashamed.
I am not ashamed. At all. :-)
I think False rape claim is worse than filming of a sexual encounter. (that is just my opinion)
I mean look at Kim Kardashian.........Paris Hilton .........that bird from So Solid Crew.... etc. All have had sex tapes many of which are long forgotten about or joked... can't remember last time someone joked about a fake rape claim.
Where as if you spend 10 minutes looking at the media then the men (double figures) who are accused have all had their careers ruined long before even being found guilty (if they have even been found guilty... many have not!!!) .
But as I said the interesting point here is that you are coming down very hard on the side of the person filming of the sexual encounter and completely forgetting about the false rape which makes me think you have a vested interest or something.
Kind of like someone breaking into my house and stealing all of my worldly possessions but I followed them home and took photos of them through the windows without them knowing.
"They broke into my house and ruined my life!"
Yeah but you filmed them without a signed consent form.
I don't like the whole "Not Proven" thing because it introduces speculation and bias. As far as I'm concerned the law is about evidence and the burden of proof; not about a Sheriff/Judge's personal opinion on someone's guilt. What if the Judge (male/female) is racist, sectarian bigot (more common in Scotland), a misandrist or a misogynist? If there's a little bit of unreliable and questionable evidence available to abuse then it allows them to exercise their prejudices on potentially innocent people.
I "think" you are guilty but I can't proof it but hey, I can still slap a big label on you so everyone knows how I feel. Don't worry, it won't screw up your life because the public are so understanding and will never jump to conclusions. And to think that Scotland, well Sturgeon, keeps banging on about being such a progressive country.
I "think" you are guilty but I can't proof it but hey, I can still slap a big label on you so everyone knows how I feel. Don't worry, it won't screw up your life because the public are so understanding and will never jump to conclusions. And to think that Scotland, well Sturgeon, keeps banging on about being such a progressive country.
xjay1337 said:
You seem to be dodging around the question / missing the point.
To me everyone has sex and I couldn't care if someone filmed me. The whole reason it's viewed badly is because people are ashamed.
I am not ashamed. At all. :-)
I think False rape claim is worse than filming of a sexual encounter. (that is just my opinion)
Good for you. You do realise that not everybody shares your lack of sensitivities, and some people would be mortified to have their sex lives filmed. That's yours and their choice. You can't impose your feelings on other people. To me everyone has sex and I couldn't care if someone filmed me. The whole reason it's viewed badly is because people are ashamed.
I am not ashamed. At all. :-)
I think False rape claim is worse than filming of a sexual encounter. (that is just my opinion)
I too think a false rape claim is worse, and should carry a longer custodial sentence. But both should mean jail time.
ninjag said:
I don't like the whole "Not Proven" thing because it introduces speculation and bias. As far as I'm concerned the law is about evidence and the burden of proof; not about a Sheriff/Judge's personal opinion on someone's guilt. What if the Judge (male/female) is racist, sectarian bigot (more common in Scotland), a misandrist or a misogynist? If there's a little bit of unreliable and questionable evidence available to abuse then it allows them to exercise their prejudices on potentially innocent people.
I "think" you are guilty but I can't proof it but hey, I can still slap a big label on you so everyone knows how I feel. Don't worry, it won't screw up your life because the public are so understanding and will never jump to conclusions. And to think that Scotland, well Sturgeon, keeps banging on about being such a progressive country.
Generally speaking (and noting the case in question as a sizable exception), Not Proven gets treated the same as Not Guilty. As the subject has not been found guilty, employers (etc) cannot take action against them without good reason.I "think" you are guilty but I can't proof it but hey, I can still slap a big label on you so everyone knows how I feel. Don't worry, it won't screw up your life because the public are so understanding and will never jump to conclusions. And to think that Scotland, well Sturgeon, keeps banging on about being such a progressive country.
Look at the implications of just being accused.
Nike are currently seriously looking at cutting ties with Cristiano Ronaldo because some woman has accused him.
I don’t like the twonk personally as he’s a smarmy diving c**t when it comes to playing football. But he does a lot for charity (admittedly probably tax relief) but I don’t care about his reasons.
What I do care about is this man is having his livelihood threatened just because of an allegation. That’s not right. By all means once found guilty throw the book at him.
In this case we are talking millions of pounds in lost income based solely on some woman’s word. No proof or even charges filed yet and Nike are worried.
It’s just wrong. Plain wrong.
Nike are currently seriously looking at cutting ties with Cristiano Ronaldo because some woman has accused him.
I don’t like the twonk personally as he’s a smarmy diving c**t when it comes to playing football. But he does a lot for charity (admittedly probably tax relief) but I don’t care about his reasons.
What I do care about is this man is having his livelihood threatened just because of an allegation. That’s not right. By all means once found guilty throw the book at him.
In this case we are talking millions of pounds in lost income based solely on some woman’s word. No proof or even charges filed yet and Nike are worried.
It’s just wrong. Plain wrong.
MB140 said:
Look at the implications of just being accused.
Nike are currently seriously looking at cutting ties with Cristiano Ronaldo because some woman has accused him.
I don’t like the twonk personally as he’s a smarmy diving c**t when it comes to playing football. But he does a lot for charity (admittedly probably tax relief) but I don’t care about his reasons.
What I do care about is this man is having his livelihood threatened just because of an allegation. That’s not right. By all means once found guilty throw the book at him.
In this case we are talking millions of pounds in lost income based solely on some woman’s word. No proof or even charges filed yet and Nike are worried.
It’s just wrong. Plain wrong.
That's Nike's fault. Not the woman or CR. If CR signed a contract with Nike that allowed them to bail without notice or compensation, then that's down to him. Even if the woman is lying, the fact that sponsors bail on the accused is their decision. Nike are currently seriously looking at cutting ties with Cristiano Ronaldo because some woman has accused him.
I don’t like the twonk personally as he’s a smarmy diving c**t when it comes to playing football. But he does a lot for charity (admittedly probably tax relief) but I don’t care about his reasons.
What I do care about is this man is having his livelihood threatened just because of an allegation. That’s not right. By all means once found guilty throw the book at him.
In this case we are talking millions of pounds in lost income based solely on some woman’s word. No proof or even charges filed yet and Nike are worried.
It’s just wrong. Plain wrong.
NewbishDelight said:
Generally speaking (and noting the case in question as a sizable exception), Not Proven gets treated the same as Not Guilty. As the subject has not been found guilty, employers (etc) cannot take action against them without good reason.
In the eyes of the law perhaps but certainly not in the eyes of the public. They'll see Not Proven as being Guilty: but we just couldn't prove it enough. Certain subjects can very easily warrant an employer taking action if it means preventing harm to the employee and the company's reputation. Dismissal in these cases is perfectly legal and we had to do it for these very reasons. The usual disciplinary processes had to be followed and we sought watertight legal advice to make sure everything was above board.I'm not sure how things stand with a more direct reaction, such as if someone is found Not Proven for say fraud, but that person holds a certain position in a bank or something. I suspect there will probably be ways to get rid of him / her / them (for the Canadians here) and I guess it will be written into their contract or something.
Ultimately, I don't see the need or point to have "Not Proven". It's open to interpretation, misuse and lacks closure for the accused.
Edited by ninjag on Monday 8th October 18:32
singlecoil said:
xjay1337 said:
Not disagreeing with you.
But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
I was wondering about that too.But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
Soon hidden taping may be the only way to protect yourself against these allegations that boil down to he said-she said
kowalski655 said:
singlecoil said:
xjay1337 said:
Not disagreeing with you.
But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
I was wondering about that too.But I find it interesting in your vehement position regarding filming of the sex but not the fake rape claims.
Soon hidden taping may be the only way to protect yourself against these allegations that boil down to he said-she said
Do you really live in that much fear?
There shouldn't have been the false allegations of rape, but treat someone like s
t expect a negative reaction. Seems all the worse they humped and dumped her quickly whilst recording the footage without consent. The episode sounds dodgy as f
k as if they took advantage of a vulnerable girl.Behave in a decent manner and you should be ok.
Edited by Driver101 on Monday 8th October 19:45
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff