Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2004 1:06:30 GMT 1
Today Premier League footballers Carlton Cole and Titus Bramble were released along with two other men from any charge relating with an incident in 2003.
There was sufficient evidence to bring any charges on the four men.
So why hasn't the girl who made the original claims been named as well?
|
|
|
Post by bowya on Jan 9, 2004 2:09:45 GMT 1
total debacle ant, mate.
The victims or so called victims never get named and shamed.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 9, 2004 2:22:14 GMT 1
Today Premier League footballers Carlton Cole and Titus Bramble were released along with two other men from any charge relating with an incident in 2003. There was sufficient evidence to bring any charges on the four men. So why hasn't the girl who made the original claims been named as well? surely that's insufficient evidence?
|
|
|
Post by welshshrew5 on Jan 9, 2004 10:03:37 GMT 1
It’s already incredible difficult to bring a rape/indecent assault case, with an extremely low number of them resulting in convictions, so why make it any harder?
Surely the preferred avenue for dealing with people who have clearly made completely false allegations is through the ‘wasting police time’ charge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2004 10:56:53 GMT 1
sorry TBH, typing error, it was meant to say insufficient aye
And yes Welshshrew a good idea.
Time and again men accused are proven innocent and yet just the connection with such a case/ crime has a large negative effect on their lives while the accusers are left un-named and un-shamed.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 9, 2004 12:50:05 GMT 1
Ant I'm not sure you the point.
In a lot of cases, the fact they are dropped does not mean the men were innocent, just that they can't be proved guilty.
If you are a victim it is very difficult, and so many do not want to go public.
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 9, 2004 12:50:19 GMT 1
Not referring to this case but the general discussion....
Can a girl ever bring a successful gang rape claim when it's her word against how ever many may have been involved? Would their be sufficient doubt in every case given the number of witnesses for and against? How much would a girl fight if seriously out numbered or must she now to get a level of injury that is accepted as evidence?
Personally I'm for naming neither before any charges are made.
Be careful not to confuse not enough evidence with not guilty too, as they do not mean the same. A victim can tell the truth, but there may not be enough evidence to have a good chance of conviction so the CPS will, decide whether or not to proceed on this basis. Should she be named if, in theory, that was the case?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Williams on Jan 9, 2004 13:26:21 GMT 1
Good points S&R- The unfairness was with naming the suspects before they were charged/found guilty, not in, not naming the victim now.
|
|
|
Post by Vodkavic on Jan 9, 2004 15:17:10 GMT 1
Hasn't this changed since these two were "charged".
The onus used to be on the girl/police/cps to prove that there was no consent, and this was the case with Cole and co. Pretty difficult in a lot of cases which is why so few cases are reported or go to court or end in a conviction.
Now however there is a much stronger onus on the accused to prove that there was consent. Equally difficult I would imagine.
I don't think it changed because of the case, but I can't see that it's an improvement in the process, it just seems to have moved the problem. More rape cases may now lead to successful convictions (good) but more innocent men will get accused/convicted (not so good).
And then of course there is a big grey area in the middle ... but I'm not going there!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2004 18:10:24 GMT 1
Fair point about the victim and the fact that yes, some guilty men will get away.
However this does still not justify the fact that in NO rape case the 'victim' or rather female that makes the claim is named.
If (to ensure protection of victim's whose complaints are truthful but no convinction is made) no female is ever named then the system has to be consistent.
Males involved in cases should NOT be named unless found guilty.
But at the moment that is not the case and many innocent men are named and shamed and as a result it has a negative effect on their lives.
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 9, 2004 18:30:29 GMT 1
Not just men are accused Ant - remember the Hamilton's were accused and in that case the woman who made the ill-found accusations was named, charged and found guilty.
We both agree that they shouldn't be named until, at least having been charged and probably not until found guilty. Certianly no woman/man who is raped should be named as that would most definitely deter even more women/men from reporting incidents. That could then lead to even more people being attacked.
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 9, 2004 18:51:43 GMT 1
Kind of associated......and I'm acting as a bit of a devil's advocate to provoke discussion so bear that in mind with the following question.....
Should accusations of rape be kept on someones file?
Would seem strange that someone could be accused of at least two rapes and two separate charges of indecent assult against under age girls, then pass a security check that allows them to work in a school as there wasn't enough evidence to proceed to court. We all know what can happen in one known recent instance.
|
|
|
Post by A Salopian on Jan 10, 2004 3:11:03 GMT 1
Ant, hypotheticially if you were raped or beaten up tomorrow by a group of lads, would you like to be named if the case collapsed due to insufficient evidence
Do you not think it is more important to protect the alleged victim, atleast until the accused are found NOT GUILTY.
The girl involved is not a celebrity, if they did release her name, it would mean nothing to most of us,
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jan 10, 2004 9:13:35 GMT 1
Kind of associated......and I'm acting as a bit of a devil's advocate to provoke discussion so bear that in mind with the following question..... Should accusations of rape be kept on someones file? Would seem strange that someone could be accused of at least two rapes and two separate charges of indecent assult against under age girls, then pass a security check that allows them to work in a school as there wasn't enough evidence to proceed to court. We all know what can happen in one known recent instance. I thought it was wrong that people were complaining about the fact Ian Huntley had been accussed before and there was no record. If you said records should be kept the players involved in this allegation would now be banned from helping out with kids football. You hear of cases of false allegations against teachers. These would have to be investigated and recorded. At what point are teachers sacked for being investigated?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2004 10:05:32 GMT 1
Ant, hypotheticially if you were raped or beaten up tomorrow by a group of lads, would you like to be named if the case collapsed due to insufficient evidence Do you not think it is more important to protect the alleged victim, atleast until the accused are found NOT GUILTY. The girl involved is not a celebrity, if they did release her name, it would mean nothing to most of us, S&R is spot on with my line of thinking - NONE of the people involved should be named. Putting your argument on the other foot - would you like it 'A Salopian' if an ex-Girlfriend, say, accused you of rape and your name was all over the front of the Shropshire Star despite you then being found not-guilty and having done nothing wrong whatsoever?
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Jan 10, 2004 12:16:52 GMT 1
I thought it was wrong that people were complaining about the fact Ian Huntley had been accussed before and there was no record. If you said records should be kept the players involved in this allegation would now be banned from helping out with kids football. You hear of cases of false allegations against teachers. These would have to be investigated and recorded. At what point are teachers sacked for being investigated? Just last week a teacher who had been suspended from his job for 10 YEARS (that's right 10 YEARS for a first accusation!) had his case resolved and it was acknowledged that there was no proof of guilt. The way it was resolved was that he lost his job in a compensation package. Many people in the teaching profession do end up having to quit their job without being found quilty as they are publically named virtually immediately and the damage is done! Note I wasn't complaining about Huntley - just raising a point of discussion. The footballers concerned could probably have continued to take kids training, as the law stands, as their case didn't involve an under aged child - at least two of Huntley's did. At what point may a person who has had three/four separate cases of rape/sexual assault that can't be proven due to lack of evidence, legitimately be regarded as a danger? Is that a situation when previous other cases/investigations should be taken into account or could someone accumulate 10 or 20 such charges around the country? I trust most agree to neither beeing initially named. (Good sensible discussion this!)
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 10, 2004 13:44:02 GMT 1
There's something to be said for looking but not touching. Especially when you're standing in a queue waiting for your turn with a girl you've only just met.
|
|
|
Post by LeeTUFC on Jan 10, 2004 13:51:02 GMT 1
erm what?!
have i read that last comment wrong!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 10, 2004 19:31:16 GMT 1
Well Lee, I suppose you have to grab it whenever its on offer.
As opposed to having respect for both other people and yourself.
|
|