I mean we can’t have it both ways. Footballers can be absolute wankers and treat people badly. 100%. But they are also easy targets. Do we want to live in a world whereby at best your career is halted and worst destroyed by unproven allegations?
I know there are blurred lines. The Greenwood situation for example. Whereby you have some pretty damning things that are made public, and then it’s a bit of a moral/PR conundrum.
For me though, innocent until proven guilty. Or we decent into chaos.
I think 3.2% of sexual assault cases lead to a conviction.
The way the law works, you only need to prove reasonable doubt which is incredible easy when consent is a concept.
They estimated 85,000 women a year are raped or sexually assaulted. 2022 there were 2,223 charges of rape.
There does seem to be a priority to protect innocent men against potentially malicious allegations, over prosecuting rapists and reducing the number of women being raped.
If you remove or erode the social unacceptability of rape and sexual assault, that’s also incredible detrimental.
To me, it does seem more likely a women isn’t lying than is & knowing that it’s hard to prove, I do still think there needs to be some action.
I’d like to see a campaign or something by the league. Creating a bit of a dialogue about sexual assault.
It’s why I think a stronger female presence in the game is so important. We need more women’s voices in the game
This is a brilliant response. I definitely understand the point. But my point isn’t about protecting men. It’s the fact that you are automatically guilty by extension if you disappear from sight the second an allegation comes in.
I appeciate it looks my point is being black and white: rape or malicious accusation. But I definitely accept there is a middle ground whereby someone may not know if they have been assaulted or not, and should be encouraged to report something, but again, in my mind, if we are to be widening the debate around assault and encouraging people to (correctly) come forward even if not sure, this strengthens the need to allow the law to handle it, not the public kangaroo court of social justice. The second someone is taken out of the limelight for this they are guilty, irrespective of the legal side of it. People stand to lose a lot when completely innocent.
I know what you mean in teams of the statistics and don’t refute the facts at all and agree with regarding the point about it being more likely that a woman isn’t lying than is, but for me, that’s still not grounds to essentially make anyone alleged against guilty by extension. It’s just not OK.
The crux of the issue in handling sexual assault allegations, especially among high-profile individuals, is our societal stance on due process.
We face a clear choice: either we fully uphold the principles of due process, including the presumption of innocence, or we do not.
In cases where due process is disregarded, accused individuals are left in a precarious position. Even if legally cleared, their reputations often remain tarnished.
Public opinion, questioning the legal verdict, effectively brands them as guilty indefinitely. This creates a troubling scenario where once accused, they are perceived as forever guilty, with no clear path to restore their reputation.
I really wish people that cared about these kinds of things would do the bare minimum research to find out where these numbers come from.
It’s not 3.2% of sexual assault cases. It’s 3.2% of claims from a survey. The majority of them never even go to the police with it. It’s 3.2% of claims from a survey lead to a conviction.
There is no priority to protect innocent men. There’s a priority to believe women and chastise the men. Just look at this very sub, every single person is frothing at the mouth to attack any man with an accusation against him, no matter how little evidence there is. No one is ever allowed the say the obvious that footballers would be an easy target for false claims. Yet we’re allowed to sit here and talk mad shit about the person they make claims about. “Victim blaming” is a term ONLY used against the accuser, when in reality if it’s a false claim, the victim is the accused, yet we never see anyone, including mods on this subreddit shut down harmful discussion when the guy is being torn to shreds from claims alone.
You can say about how hard it is to prove all you want but that’s a good thing. A person shouldn’t be able to send you to jail and destroy your life with 0 evidence. Even though we see that plenty of men have gone to jail on false claims already.
Just look at this very sub, every single person is frothing at the mouth to attack any man with an accusation against him, no matter how little evidence there is.
Disagree, plenty of people here immediately discard any accusations. Only when there are recordings and other proofs people will defend the women
Innocent until proven guilty means that you don’t get locked up for life without proving that you committed a crime in court. It doesn’t mean you get to be on TV every weekend.
OK, so when you get investigated for something, that you are then not guilty for, do you get all of the losses back? Reputational damage back? You have to draw the line somewhere and I think the law is a sensible place. If you are sidelined you are by extension assumed guilty and that is extraordinarily damaging. It’s not right for those who are not guilty.
No you or I would end up in a massive hole financially most likely. But they will be fine because they’re incredibly wealthy and despite what everyone says the almost immediately find a club to take them.
Exactly that. Innocent in the eyes of the law but the public nature of it then brings other elements into the fore which makes it less black and white. But very few of these situations have WhatsApp audio made public etc.
The problem with innocent until proven guilty is that in practice you’re letting off most perpetrators scot free. How can someone possibly prove something was not consensual? Recordings maybe, but that’s only possible if they know it’ll happen beforehand. There’s no easy answer that doesn’t lead to some very bad outcomes.
I mean we can’t have it both ways. Footballers can be absolute wankers and treat people badly. 100%. But they are also easy targets. Do we want to live in a world whereby at best your career is halted and worst destroyed by unproven allegations?
I know there are blurred lines. The Greenwood situation for example. Whereby you have some pretty damning things that are made public, and then it’s a bit of a moral/PR conundrum.
For me though, innocent until proven guilty. Or we decent into chaos.
I don’t think it’s that simple.
I think 3.2% of sexual assault cases lead to a conviction.
The way the law works, you only need to prove reasonable doubt which is incredible easy when consent is a concept.
They estimated 85,000 women a year are raped or sexually assaulted. 2022 there were 2,223 charges of rape.
There does seem to be a priority to protect innocent men against potentially malicious allegations, over prosecuting rapists and reducing the number of women being raped.
If you remove or erode the social unacceptability of rape and sexual assault, that’s also incredible detrimental.
To me, it does seem more likely a women isn’t lying than is & knowing that it’s hard to prove, I do still think there needs to be some action.
I’d like to see a campaign or something by the league. Creating a bit of a dialogue about sexual assault.
It’s why I think a stronger female presence in the game is so important. We need more women’s voices in the game
This is a brilliant response. I definitely understand the point. But my point isn’t about protecting men. It’s the fact that you are automatically guilty by extension if you disappear from sight the second an allegation comes in.
I appeciate it looks my point is being black and white: rape or malicious accusation. But I definitely accept there is a middle ground whereby someone may not know if they have been assaulted or not, and should be encouraged to report something, but again, in my mind, if we are to be widening the debate around assault and encouraging people to (correctly) come forward even if not sure, this strengthens the need to allow the law to handle it, not the public kangaroo court of social justice. The second someone is taken out of the limelight for this they are guilty, irrespective of the legal side of it. People stand to lose a lot when completely innocent.
I know what you mean in teams of the statistics and don’t refute the facts at all and agree with regarding the point about it being more likely that a woman isn’t lying than is, but for me, that’s still not grounds to essentially make anyone alleged against guilty by extension. It’s just not OK.
The crux of the issue in handling sexual assault allegations, especially among high-profile individuals, is our societal stance on due process.
We face a clear choice: either we fully uphold the principles of due process, including the presumption of innocence, or we do not.
In cases where due process is disregarded, accused individuals are left in a precarious position. Even if legally cleared, their reputations often remain tarnished.
Public opinion, questioning the legal verdict, effectively brands them as guilty indefinitely. This creates a troubling scenario where once accused, they are perceived as forever guilty, with no clear path to restore their reputation.
I really wish people that cared about these kinds of things would do the bare minimum research to find out where these numbers come from.
It’s not 3.2% of sexual assault cases. It’s 3.2% of claims from a survey. The majority of them never even go to the police with it. It’s 3.2% of claims from a survey lead to a conviction.
There is no priority to protect innocent men. There’s a priority to believe women and chastise the men. Just look at this very sub, every single person is frothing at the mouth to attack any man with an accusation against him, no matter how little evidence there is. No one is ever allowed the say the obvious that footballers would be an easy target for false claims. Yet we’re allowed to sit here and talk mad shit about the person they make claims about. “Victim blaming” is a term ONLY used against the accuser, when in reality if it’s a false claim, the victim is the accused, yet we never see anyone, including mods on this subreddit shut down harmful discussion when the guy is being torn to shreds from claims alone.
You can say about how hard it is to prove all you want but that’s a good thing. A person shouldn’t be able to send you to jail and destroy your life with 0 evidence. Even though we see that plenty of men have gone to jail on false claims already.
Disagree, plenty of people here immediately discard any accusations. Only when there are recordings and other proofs people will defend the women
Rape apologist
Innocent until proven guilty means that you don’t get locked up for life without proving that you committed a crime in court. It doesn’t mean you get to be on TV every weekend.
OK, so when you get investigated for something, that you are then not guilty for, do you get all of the losses back? Reputational damage back? You have to draw the line somewhere and I think the law is a sensible place. If you are sidelined you are by extension assumed guilty and that is extraordinarily damaging. It’s not right for those who are not guilty.
No you or I would end up in a massive hole financially most likely. But they will be fine because they’re incredibly wealthy and despite what everyone says the almost immediately find a club to take them.
That’s absurd.
It’s the truth?
What’s blurred with the Greenwood situation?
There was concrete evidence of abuse, the victim didn’t proceed with charges. The evidence alone was more than enough to halt his career at United.
Exactly that. Innocent in the eyes of the law but the public nature of it then brings other elements into the fore which makes it less black and white. But very few of these situations have WhatsApp audio made public etc.
The problem with innocent until proven guilty is that in practice you’re letting off most perpetrators scot free. How can someone possibly prove something was not consensual? Recordings maybe, but that’s only possible if they know it’ll happen beforehand. There’s no easy answer that doesn’t lead to some very bad outcomes.