Another prove your innocence case

[gooner1]

Venturist said:

WinstonWolf said:

"Rape investigations are by their nature very complex, and often hinge on the contradictory accounts of the alleged suspect and the complainant about what has taken place. We are reviewing all our investigations, where we are in discussion with the CPS, to assure ourselves that we are meeting our disclosure obligations in an acceptable timescale based on the volume of data that some cases involve."

Seems they're more interested in meeting acceptable timescales rather than the fact that they're destroying innocent men's lives. There are more important lessons to learn here...

Regardless of what they say it seems the starting point is still guilty until proven innocent. If they don’t have time to check through records there should be no conviction at all because there’d be no proof the defendant was even in the same country as the complainant, let alone having sex with the complainant, let alone whether that sex is against the complainant’s wishes, let alone whether those wishes were made known to the defendant who decided to ignore them.

As someone, far brighter than myself, said this morning, the police seem to have become the prosecutors, rather than the investigators. As for Mr Azriah, anybody that considers a suspension to be a verdict of guilty, most probably assumes him to be guilty
anyway.

Edited by gooner1 on Wednesday 20th December 11:44

[Moonhawk]

Breadvan72 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42178622

22%? Is that figure overall - or on a like for like job basis?

For example - does it correct for:

• Career breaks due to having kids
• Danger pay (I bet there are very few females working on oil rigs for example).
• Job Type/area of the business (shell has large retail and corporate arms as well as oil exploration and refining)

I somehow doubt a female oil rig engineer who has the same training and qualifications as her male peers and has not taken time out to have kids is being payed 22% less than her male peers - just because she is female. Similar with a shell petrol station checkout attendants.

That's the problem with all these 'gender pay gap' stories - they almost always look at pay at a very high level, averaged over a large population.

I have yet to see an article that compares like with like (i.e. same job, same qualifications, same training, same work experience, same amount of time out of work due to maternity or sickness, same number of hours worked, same performance in the job, same negotiating skills when negotiating salary/package).

[anonymous-user]

Nanook said:

In a thread about males being falsely accussed of rape, and in some instances it seems, convicted as a result of evidence being withheld, you're countering with "Men earn more".

Top whataboutery.

No, I am responding to the MRAs who consider the UK to be a gynocracy. I am simply suggesting that they engage with reality.

[Venturist]

Breadvan72 said:

No, I am responding to the MRAs who consider the UK to be a gynocracy. I am simply suggesting that they engage with reality.

But this further reinforces the point - men are having lives ruined for crimes they didn’t commit, with no evidence of their having committed it but the word of a woman; and your grand counterpoint is that women have it hard too as they’re paid less than men, a myth that has been disproven many times?

[Mrr T]

Breadvan72 said:

To the bleating oppressed males above, there is a gender pay gap. Look it up.

That rather depends on what you mean by a “gender pay gap”.

There is no evidence that men and women with the same skills doing the same job are paid differently.

However, we also know on average women earn less than men. The reason are well understood by anyone with any understanding of the data; which does not include most on the left who automatically say it men oppressing women.

[Dr Jekyll]

Mrr T said:

That rather depends on what you mean by a “gender pay gap”.

There is no evidence that men and women with the same skills doing the same job are paid differently.

However, we also know on average women earn less than men. The reason are well understood by anyone with any understanding of the data; which does not include most on the left who automatically say it men oppressing women.

Unless we are talking about part time work in which case men earn less than women. All because they tend to do different jobs.

[Cold]

Like I've asked on another thread, who is giving their binwomen a Christmas tip this year?

[Sway]

Another one thrown out - two days prior to court - for the same reason, with the same investigating officer...

I'll dig out the article - edited - here it is:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-li...

[JagLover]

Mrr T said:

That rather depends on what you mean by a “gender pay gap”.

There is no evidence that men and women with the same skills doing the same job are paid differently.

However, we also know on average women earn less than men. The reason are well understood by anyone with any understanding of the data; which does not include most on the left who automatically say it men oppressing women.

Where I work now had to reveal their gender pay information.

There was an overall pay gap. It was then broken down, women perform 73% of the lowest pay grade roles , due to overwhelming dominance of admin roles.

Every other grade it was basically 50/50 up to and including Manager level.

Above Manager level it was around 75% Male. However people above Manager level are usually late forties or older, so this reflects career choices often made 25 years ago or further back.

Wave a magic wand and fix the "gender pay gap".

If this becomes ever more of an issue in the years to come I would expect companies to try and resolve this by a) outsourcing as many admin roles as possible b) promoting female staff earlier than male c) perhaps even early retirement schemes for senior people,

Anyone who thinks there is some sort of "glass ceiling" holding women back hasn't spent any time in a modern professional services firm. They are desperate to promote women to meet targets.

[Gameface]

Why has this turned into a gender pay gap thread? Bizarre.

[Gargamel]

Breadvan72 said:

No, I am responding to the MRAs who consider the UK to be a gynocracy. I am simply suggesting that they engage with reality.

So is the argument that because men may have some benefit overall from being men, that the odd false accusation of rape, sexual abuse and/or police withholding evidence is acceptable ?



I am broad agreement with your sentiment, men aren't a persecuted group as such, however in the family courts, some school systems, sentencing policy, and it seems in terms of credibility with the police in DV and SA cases - there is a real issue of equality not actually being equal.

[Fastpedeller]

Saw Midday news, and the Police spokesman said something along the lines of "all relevant evidence was given before the case came to court" What! sounds like Police can 'cherry pick' the evidence to reinforce the prosecution, and ignore other evidence they deem 'not relevant'? Crikey this smacks of 'get a conviction' rather than 'achieve justice'

[Dr Jekyll]

Fastpedeller said:

Saw Midday news, and the Police spokesman said something along the lines of "all relevant evidence was given before the case came to court" What! sounds like Police can 'cherry pick' the evidence to reinforce the prosecution, and ignore other evidence they deem 'not relevant'? Crikey this smacks of 'get a conviction' rather than 'achieve justice'

I thought he was talking about this weeks case.

[WinstonWolf]

Breadvan72 said:

Nanook said:

In a thread about males being falsely accussed of rape, and in some instances it seems, convicted as a result of evidence being withheld, you're countering with "Men earn more".

Top whataboutery.

No, I am responding to the MRAs who consider the UK to be a gynocracy. I am simply suggesting that they engage with reality.

Objection: Irrelevant.

Reality, you seen how many men lose custody battles for their kids? The legal system is biased against men a we've seen in this case.

Get it back on topic will ya'.

[Fastpedeller]

Dr Jekyll said:

Fastpedeller said:

Saw Midday news, and the Police spokesman said something along the lines of "all relevant evidence was given before the case came to court" What! sounds like Police can 'cherry pick' the evidence to reinforce the prosecution, and ignore other evidence they deem 'not relevant'? Crikey this smacks of 'get a conviction' rather than 'achieve justice'

I thought he was talking about this weeks case.

They should present all evidence for a case, surely, and let the judge or jury decide what's relevant?

[Venturist]

Fastpedeller said:

They should present all evidence for a case, surely, and let the judge or jury decide what's relevant?

I think you misunderstood; if they presented everything that’d include 40,000 texts, many of which will have been to her Mum about what’s for dinner. The police are SUPPOSED to do that sifting so

[Fastpedeller]

Venturist said:

Fastpedeller said:

They should present all evidence for a case, surely, and let the judge or jury decide what's relevant?

I think you misunderstood; if they presented everything that’d include 40,000 texts, many of which will have been to her Mum about what’s for dinner. The police are SUPPOSED to do that sifting so

Ah I see - but letting the 'prosecution' sift the evidence can clearly create an issue. I don't see any way around it (other than someone impartial going through all the texts) in this situation. The Police are meant to be impartial, but it raises a query?

[Thorodin]

Venturist said:

I think you misunderstood; if they presented everything that’d include 40,000 texts, many of which will have been to her Mum about what’s for dinner. The police are SUPPOSED to do that sifting so

Yes, those 40,000 texts, wow - how vacuous - contained damning evidence (for the prosecution case). Due diligence would have edited those 40,000 to produce relevant evidence. Seems like the DC scanned or speed-read the first hundred then got fed up and invoked the 'cuts' excuse to cut corners. As I said much earlier, there are now legions of claims for wrongful arrest and prosecution. No pun intended, but the police attitude is indefensible, the law allowing prejudicial pre-trial judgement is indefensible, and the irrational polit-corr emphasis is indefensible. As ever and ad infinitum there will be 'lessons to be learned' and 'systems will be changed'. The law is no better than the atypical banana republic. Or can that not be said any more?

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

Venturist said:

I think you misunderstood; if they presented everything that’d include 40,000 texts, many of which will have been to her Mum about what’s for dinner. The police are SUPPOSED to do that sifting so

Yes, those 40,000 texts, wow - how vacuous - contained damning evidence (for the prosecution case). Due diligence would have edited those 40,000 to produce relevant evidence. Seems like the DC scanned or speed-read the first hundred then got fed up and invoked the 'cuts' excuse to cut corners. As I said much earlier, there are now legions of claims for wrongful arrest and prosecution. No pun intended, but the police attitude is indefensible, the law allowing prejudicial pre-trial judgement is indefensible, and the irrational polit-corr emphasis is indefensible. As ever and ad infinitum there will be 'lessons to be learned' and 'systems will be changed'. The law is no better than the atypical banana republic. Or can that not be said any more?

If you look at the Attorney General's guidelines as to the extent of digital inspection, it states that search tools or dip sampling may be appropriate depending on the nature and volume of the material. 40,000 texts strike me as the nature and volume that would be subject to something like that.

That doesn't mean other aspects were correctly followed in this case.

[Thorodin]

La Liga said:

f you look at the Attorney General's guidelines as to the extent of digital inspection, it states that search tools or dip sampling may be appropriate depending on the nature and volume of the material. 40,000 texts strike me as the nature and volume that would be subject to something like that.

That doesn't mean other aspects were correctly followed in this case.

Agreed. However just one missed text that could dissuade a prosecution from mounting a wrong case is enough to destroy an innocent and blameless man. Some have even committed suicide prior to trial. The nature and volumes of material in such serious cases should indicate a more forensic attitude towards investigation is needed, that is if the assumption of guilt/innocence were the same as in every other 'crime'. The Attorney General's guidelines should be revised? The scales are not evenly balanced - a mockery of justice!