Question Time & This Week

Jippy said:
I'm tempted to double down on it, but I need to do it now cos I'm knackered. Any idea when the announcement is due?

Jeez this is pretty grim.
Click to expand...

Usually around 11am I think. I think realistically in this market right now I’m not expecting it to fly back up to 60/70c+. I just think it’ll be one of the coins likely to hold against the tide or see a reasonable gain against BTC.

Who knows? It could be that this dip happened at a perfect time and the Asians will buy up all the cheap tokens on offer and we’ll see a bullish day tomorrow, in which case a strong announcement could see a lovely spike.
 
Pexbo said:
Usually around 11am I think. I think realistically in this market right now I’m not expecting it to fly back up to 60/70c+. I just think it’ll be one of the coins likely to hold against the tide or see a reasonable gain against BTC.

Who knows? It could be that this dip happened at a perfect time and the Asians will buy up all the cheap tokens on offer and we’ll see a bullish day tomorrow, in which case a strong announcement could see a lovely spike.
Click to expand...
Fingers crossed. It's just on binance so an easy trade.

God that torygraph guy is a smug cnut.
 
What were people's views on the question of false accusers of rape and their identity being made public?
 
esmufc07 said:
What were people's views on the question of false accusers of rape and their identity being made public?
Click to expand...

A few were talking about how more has to be done to protect the identity of those who've been accused, due to false allegations etc.

Which isn't an awful idea necessarily, but completely ignores the fact that court cases and legal matters are made public by design because media has to report on them etc.
 
Jippy said:
Fingers crossed. It's just on binance so an easy trade.

God that torygraph guy is a smug cnut.
Click to expand...

When he said his final piece about Maggie’s satue beating away protestors with an iron handbag you could see the reasonably hot girl who’d spoken a few minutes before give him such a condescending look with her arms folded as everyone else was clapping him :lol:

esmufc07 said:
Christ he wouldn't shut up. Dimbleby should have kicked him out.
Click to expand...

Gay farmer I reckon. Hates that women were allowed into the young farmers club and started stealing all his boys.

esmufc07 said:
What were people's views on the question of false accusers of rape and their identity being made public?
Click to expand...

It’s a ridiculous idea. The percentage of convictions compared to estimated rape figures is already disproportionately low.

I mean whats the threshold for a “false accusation”? That the rapist isn’t found guilty? Imagine a girl loses her right to anonymity because a defense lawyer gets the rapist off on a technicality and the rapist tells everyone who will hear it what a liar and a nasty piece of work she is.

My view is that being innocent and then being accused of a heinous crime isn’t half as bad as being the victim of a heinous crime, seeing the abuser escape punishment and then having your name thrown into the public domain, being called a liar and whatever else.

There’s no perfect solution and I think the latter is more damaging so should have the most protection.
 
If a false accusation was proven to be so (i.e. there is proof the accuser was making it up), it would already be punishable for perverting the course of justice, wouldn't it?

And if you make the accused anonymous in cases like this, you have to accept that the rate of conviction will also drop.
 
Ubik said:
If a false accusation was proven to be so (i.e. there is proof the accuser was making it up), it would already be punishable for perverting the course of justice, wouldn't it?

And if you make the accused anonymous in cases like this, you have to accept that the rate of conviction will also drop.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine so - not exactly sure what the status would be though. There're probably plenty of cases where it'd look like the person was lying, but there's nowhere near enough evidence to bring that to a court of law. Which is of course the important part.

It's generally a fairly small number of cases which see actual provable false allegations though, because I'd imagine most genuinely false ones - i.e. where it's easily provable that someone wasn't where they're accused of being at a certain time etc - don't even make it past the initial stages and into court.
 
The problem with rape cases is that in the vast majority of instances it boils down to one person's word against another's and unless we lower the burden of proof across the board on criminal cases, the conviction rate isn't ever going to significantly increase. The fact innocent people are being sent to jail by the police and/or the CPS deliberately withholding information from a jury is a worrying sign how the authorities are under pressure to produce and at-all-costs increase in the conviction rate.

The very nature of the crime makes it extremely difficult to meet the criminal burden of proof. We might not like that fact, but I think we have to accept it. Else what precedent are we setting? Conviction rates in burglary cases too low so why not change it so the accused has to prove they didn't burgle the house instead of putting onus on the prosecution to prove beyond a doubt they did, make it so there's no need to the accuser to testify, if it's one person's word over the other introduce a culture where the person making the accusation of theft is always believed. None of this would be acceptable in any other criminal case, yet it's where we are with those accused of rape.
 
Pexbo said:
It’s a ridiculous idea. The percentage of convictions compared to estimated rape figures is already disproportionately low.

I mean whats the threshold for a “false accusation”? That the rapist isn’t found guilty? Imagine a girl loses her right to anonymity because a defense lawyer gets the rapist off on a technicality and the rapist tells everyone who will hear it what a liar and a nasty piece of work she is.

My view is that being innocent and then being accused of a heinous crime isn’t half as bad as being the victim of a heinous crime, seeing the abuser escape punishment and then having your name thrown into the public domain, being called a liar and whatever else.

There’s no perfect solution and I think the latter is more damaging so should have the most protection.
Click to expand...
It is a difficult one. There have been a few blokes whose reputation has been completely destroyed and who've even spent years behind bars after being maliciously accused. They are the distinct minority though and I agree, with the dreadful rape conviction rate and the danger of woman not coming forward and reporting crime for fear of not being believed, on balance is women who need greater legal protection here, not men.
 
Jippy said:
It is a difficult one. There have been a few blokes whose reputation has been completely destroyed and who've even spent years behind bars after being maliciously accused. They are the distinct minority though and I agree, with the dreadful rape conviction rate and the danger of woman not coming forward and reporting crime for fear of not being believed, on balance is women who need greater legal protection here, not men.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last part, but I can't accept a few wrong convictions and destroyed reputations as collateral damage. That's the reason that they got rid of the death penalty, wasn't it?
 
Sassy Colin said:
I agree with the last part, but I can't accept a few wrong convictions and destroyed reputations as collateral damage. That's the reason that they got rid of the death penalty, wasn't it?
Click to expand...
It's not perfect, but it seems that you're going to get collateral damage on one side or the other.
 
Jippy said:
It's not perfect, but it seems that you're going to get collateral damage on one side or the other.
Click to expand...

Aye and that was my last point, given the choice would you rather be falsely accused of rape and have to deal with the consequences of that or your wife/mother/sister/daughter be the victim of an actual sexual assault, fail to make a conviction on the attacker and then have their name dragged out in public as the attacker calls them a liar?
 
Pexbo said:
Aye and that was my last point, given the choice would you rather be falsely accused of rape and have to deal with the consequences of that or your wife/mother/sister/daughter be the victim of an actual sexual assault, fail to make a conviction on the attacker and then have their name dragged out in public as the attacker calls them a liar?
Click to expand...
There is obviously a difference between a failed rape claim and a malicious one- more arguments for naming if you get a serial one of the latter.
 
Pexbo said:
Aye and that was my last point, given the choice would you rather be falsely accused of rape and have to deal with the consequences of that or your wife/mother/sister/daughter be the victim of an actual sexual assault, fail to make a conviction on the attacker and then have their name dragged out in public as the attacker calls them a liar?
Click to expand...

You are only looking at one side of the argument, what if the accused was your brother/father/husband?
 
I don't think keeping the accused's name confidential until they're convicted is a particularly bad idea. Only thing is it eliminates the possibility of others coming forward with testimonies if the accused is a serial rapist.

Obviously you can't name and shame accusers. But any case of someone making provably malicious false accusations needs to be punished severely and openly.
 
Sassy Colin said:
You are only looking at one side of the argument, what if the accused was your brother/father/husband?
Click to expand...

OK I will reword it for you: given the choice would you rather your brother/father/husband be falsely accused of rape and have to deal with the consequences of that or your wife/mother/sister/daughter be the victim of an actual sexual assault, fail to make a conviction on the attacker and then have their name dragged out in public as the attacker calls them a liar?
 
Pexbo said:
OK I will reword it for you: given the choice would you rather your brother/father/husband be falsely accused of rape and have to deal with the consequences of that or your wife/mother/sister/daughter be the victim of an actual sexual assault, fail to make a conviction on the attacker and then have their name dragged out in public as the attacker calls them a liar?
Click to expand...

Nope, still too much bias against the falsely accused.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Nope, still too much bias against the falsely accused.
Click to expand...

So to get this straight, you'd rather the situation where a woman:

Has been raped.
Has the strength to report it.
Has to go through intrusive medical examinations.
Has to relive the whole thing in a police interview.
Has to then relive the whole thing in court.
Has to then be interrogated by a defence lawyer in front of family, friends, judge and jury. Have their whole sexual history brought up, character assassinated.
Then loses the case on a technicality, maybe the defence sowed a seed of doubt because she was seen approaching him in the bar first on CCTV and initiated the first kiss.
Then because she's lost the case, the attacker can say "FALSE accusations, she's a nasty liar and she put me through hell.".

There's various punishments here:

The physical attack and mental pain that brings with it.
The whole court ordeal.
The attacker being found not guilty and no justice being served.
The victim's name then being slung around as a liar who tried to wreck someones life.


For a man falsely accused, he might have to deal with 2 or 3 of those punishments but he was never the victim of a physical attack and that's why the victim must have the balance tipped in their favour in what is a no win situation for anyone.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Nope, still too much bias against the falsely accused.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there isn't just a 'nope' option. Either some men get hurt or a lot of women get hurt. Whatever you choose one or the other happens. It's one of the hardest criminal justice questions which is why it's been debated repeatedly over the years with no clear conclusions.
 
Kentonio said:
The problem is that there isn't just a 'nope' option. Either some men get hurt or a lot of women get hurt. Whatever you choose one or the other happens. It's one of the hardest criminal justice questions which is why it's been debated repeatedly over the years with no clear conclusions.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's why I am saying you should not bias one side or the other, but see it from both sides. You would also have to look at each case on its own merits.
 
Sassy Colin said:
I agree, that's why I am saying you should not bias one side or the other, but see it from both sides. You would also have to look at each case on its own merits.
Click to expand...

You have to have legal guidelines though, otherwise you end up with what justice you receive depending purely on the mood of the judge.
 
The insufferable ginger twat in Grantham is clearly upset that he’s no longer a minority and is shouting about stopping those pesky immigrants from pushing the ginger folk up the minority rankings...

I had to look Grantham up by the way, I’ve never heard of this place before. It might be good for it to stay lost, only one person clapped the immigrant living here for 35 years with no vote in the referendum despite the valid points she raised about democracy.
 
Good lord, I was actually kind of glad to get to the Brexit question this time.
 
British Brexiter asserts the fact that they are British, and thinks this somehow means Brexit is more likely to be successful.
 
Interesting discussion on the first question. Half expected lots of hand wringing talking about how it should all be equal but actually most the of opinion seemed to be the jobs weren’t equal. It was only Emily Thornberry who magically knew all the ins and outs of the supermarket business model who knew for a fact the work was equally valuable.
 
Terry Christian is making some points many people would agree with but Christ is he a motormouth. You lose the argument completely when regardless of the points you make everyone just wants you to shut up.
 
I found Thornberry unbearable this week, she spent the entire show shouting over/at the Conservative then in the last question she said that to attract more women into politics they had to stop "shouting at other".
 
Did anyone catch the end of This Week? They finished with a clip of an hilarious spat over speaking rights in the Irish Dail. It seems to have had something to do with a new system of laminated number cards, wherein if somebody wants to speak on the same topic as the previous speaker they can jump the queue:

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/dail-shouting-healy-rae-oireachtas-11988097 (includes the clip)

Fianna Fail's Marc McSharry not in the slightest bit amused (but I was:lol:).
 
The Dutch want to leave? No they don't.:lol:

Seemingly any mild expression of Euroscepticism means a country wants to leave now.
 
Love that woman telling the CEO of a major global company he didn't know what Europeans want. She's been on holiday there, you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.