The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[pErvinalia]

Tom Hanks has popped up to condemn Weinstein, saying that his name will become a noun and a verb.

Nice to see a man taking charge of the situation, eh boys? Eh?

What a virtue signalling white-knight cuck!

[cronus]

Tom Hanks has popped up to condemn Weinstein, saying that his name will become a noun and a verb.

Nice to see a man taking charge of the situation, eh boys? Eh?

What a virtue signalling white-knight cuck!

Doesn't he mean byword, like saville over here?

[devogue]

We're all feminists these days.

Well, you have to be if you want to get a shag.

[devogue]

David Blaine has now been accused of anally raping a woman in 2004. He has denied the claim. It's impossible to prove or disprove the claim- but if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.

[Hermit]

...if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.

I'm beginning to think this is a great concept.

No. Wait. Let me rephrase that. I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male.

[cronus]

Mass hysteria. How religions start. It's converging on 'all men are rapists' territory with the tabloid press and these high profile cases set in niche markets of body fascism industries like modeling/sport and the movies. Where it appears to be true. Where the body beautiful is worshipped/defiled.

[devogue]

...if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.

I'm beginning to think this is a great concept.

No. Wait. Let me rephrase that. I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male.

The terrible dilemma we face is that after a short amount of time evidence like traces of rape drugs in a victim's system, bruising and physical injuries, semen and other DNA evidence (scratches on perpetrators , skin under nails of victims etc) all disappear - receipts and corroborating evidence like CCTV footage are wiped and disappear with time.

It really does often come down to one person's word against another and if that is the case do we disbelieve a potential victim who claims tremendous injury and trauma and quite possibly magnify that trauma, or do we disbelieve an alleged perpetrator who will then face years of imprisonment and a destroyed life? It's a genuinely horrendous dilemma.

I humbly suggest that such incredibly serious allegations, long after the event, be handled in confidence by the proper authorities. Consider how much better it would be if David Blaine's alleged victim could at first put on record her claim with the police, detailing his modus operandi, thus laying a foundation for possible future prosecution.

Two years later another alleged victim of Blaine comes forward - she doesn't know about the initial claim against him. The police take a statement and see that there are striking similarities betwen the alleged attacks, to the point where a successful prosecution can be considered.

If this scenario happened as a matter of course more women would hopefully report historic rapes because they would hope that previous or future victims could safely report their experiences.

As it is, Blaine has been accused of drugging and anally raping a woman. If ten other women come forward and say they were drugged and anally raped are they telling the truth or are they basing their accounts on the original alleged victim's statement that has been reported in detail in the media?

[Hermit]

...if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.

I'm beginning to think this is a great concept.

No. Wait. Let me rephrase that. I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male.

The terrible dilemma we face is that after a short amount of time evidence like traces of rape drugs in a victim's system, bruising and physical injuries, semen and other DNA evidence (scratches on perpetrators , skin under nails of victims etc) all disappear - receipts and corroborating evidence like CCTV footage are wiped and disappear with time.

It really does often come down to one person's word against another and if that is the case do we disbelieve a potential victim who claims tremendous injury and trauma and quite possibly magnify that trauma, or do we disbelieve an alleged perpetrator who will then face years of imprisonment and a destroyed life? It's a genuinely horrendous dilemma.

I humbly suggest that such incredibly serious allegations, long after the event, be handled in confidence by the proper authorities. Consider how much better it would be if David Blaine's alleged victim could at first put on record her claim with the police, detailing his modus operandi, thus laying a foundation for possible future prosecution.

Two years later another alleged victim of Blaine comes forward - she doesn't know about the initial claim against him. The police take a statement and see that there are striking similarities betwen the alleged attacks, to the point where a successful prosecution can be considered.

If this scenario happened as a matter of course more women would hopefully report historic rapes because they would hope that previous or future victims could safely report their experiences.

As it is, Blaine has been accused of drugging and anally raping a woman. If ten other women come forward and say they were drugged and anally raped are they telling the truth or are they basing their accounts on the original alleged victim's statement that has been reported in detail in the media?

Yes, in cases of what has become known as "historical rape" allegations levelled at public figures the disappearance of evidence through time makes a satisfactory procedure for dealing with them even more difficult than any others.

I don't think telling the alleged victim: "Sorry about your alleged rape, but we won't deal with it for an unspecified number of years because we prefer to wait and see if some pattern emerges, should some other alleged victims turn up in connection with the same alleged perpetrator" is such a good idea. Not only will this further discourage real victims from reporting the rape or sexual assault - as if they needed further discouragement - but in cases where the allegation turns out to be true, though possibly unprovable, nothing stands in the way for the perpetrator to keep right on doing what is his wont in the meantime.

Another objection is that for all practical intents and purposes your proposal basically consists of having one law for the rich and famous and another law for everyone else.

I don't think you have thought any of this through.

[cronus]

Without objective evidence it becomes a arena for gold-diggers and attention-seekers. Once you have Salem witch hunting thing on the go it can quickly escalate...and take turns no one expects. Before you know most women are castrating their partners - in some frenzied black swan event across the world. Taking the law into their own hands.

[devogue]

...if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.

I'm beginning to think this is a great concept.

No. Wait. Let me rephrase that. I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male.

The terrible dilemma we face is that after a short amount of time evidence like traces of rape drugs in a victim's system, bruising and physical injuries, semen and other DNA evidence (scratches on perpetrators , skin under nails of victims etc) all disappear - receipts and corroborating evidence like CCTV footage are wiped and disappear with time.

It really does often come down to one person's word against another and if that is the case do we disbelieve a potential victim who claims tremendous injury and trauma and quite possibly magnify that trauma, or do we disbelieve an alleged perpetrator who will then face years of imprisonment and a destroyed life? It's a genuinely horrendous dilemma.

I humbly suggest that such incredibly serious allegations, long after the event, be handled in confidence by the proper authorities. Consider how much better it would be if David Blaine's alleged victim could at first put on record her claim with the police, detailing his modus operandi, thus laying a foundation for possible future prosecution.

Two years later another alleged victim of Blaine comes forward - she doesn't know about the initial claim against him. The police take a statement and see that there are striking similarities betwen the alleged attacks, to the point where a successful prosecution can be considered.

If this scenario happened as a matter of course more women would hopefully report historic rapes because they would hope that previous or future victims could safely report their experiences.

As it is, Blaine has been accused of drugging and anally raping a woman. If ten other women come forward and say they were drugged and anally raped are they telling the truth or are they basing their accounts on the original alleged victim's statement that has been reported in detail in the media?

Yes, in cases of what has become known as "historical rape" allegations levelled at public figures the disappearance of evidence through time makes a satisfactory procedure for dealing with them even more difficult than any others.

I don't think telling the alleged victim: "Sorry about your alleged rape, but we won't deal with it for an unspecified number of years because we prefer to wait and see if some pattern emerges, should some other alleged victims turn up in connection with the same alleged perpetrator" is such a good idea. Not only will this further discourage real victims from reporting the rape or sexual assault - as if they needed further discouragement - but in cases where the allegation turns out to be true, though possibly unprovable, nothing stands in the way for the perpetrator to keep right on doing what is his wont in the meantime.

Another objection is that for all practical intents and purposes your proposal basically consists of having one law for the rich and famous and another law for everyone else.

I don't think you have thought any of this through.

The crucial part of what you say is "in cases where the allegation turns out to be true, though possibly unprovable...".

Even if it is true in reality, if it is unprovable the devastating fact of the matter is that the perpetrator must be found not guilty and must therefore escape punishment.

My proposal accepts this but creates a judicial strategy to ensnare repeat offenders. Of course, the idea of sitting tight and waiting for future victims to come forward is ethically questionable to say the least, but if it ensures more secure and definite prosecutions and convictions beyond "her word versus his word" (which will more often than not lead to no prosecution or not guilty verdicts in the event of prosecution because the stakes are so high) then I think it's a good idea.

Also, this premise is based on a national/international database of anonymous accusations against particular individuals so rich and famous, poor and unknown would all be covered by it.

So, if Tom Smith of Coventry has an accusation filed against his name by Victim A in 2011 for anal rape in 2001 while scoring the letter "T" in Victim A's neck but there is no scar or physical evidence it's hard to create a case that will result in conviction.

But if Victim B, who is absolutely unknown to Victim A (and unaware of her ordeal) makes an accusation in 2013 against Tom Smith of Coventry of anal rape in 2002 then the case against Smith is significantly more powerful.

[Galaxian]

The terrible dilemma we face is that after a short amount of time evidence like traces of rape drugs in a victim's system, bruising and physical injuries, semen and other DNA evidence (scratches on perpetrators , skin under nails of victims etc) all disappear - receipts and corroborating evidence like CCTV footage are wiped and disappear with time.

It really does often come down to one person's word against another and if that is the case do we disbelieve a potential victim who claims tremendous injury and trauma and quite possibly magnify that trauma, or do we disbelieve an alleged perpetrator who will then face years of imprisonment and a destroyed life? It's a genuinely horrendous dilemma.

There is no dilemma. If there's no evidence, there is no crime. That's the end of the matter. Case dismissed in 5 minutes.

I humbly suggest that such incredibly serious allegations, long after the event, be handled in confidence by the proper authorities.

There are no 'proper authorities'. They all fumble in the dark. Their main concern is their hip pocket & empire building.

If this scenario happened as a matter of course more women would hopefully report historic rapes because they would hope that previous or future victims could safely report their experiences.

If they didn't come forward immediately, while there may have been physical evidence, they were not unduly distressed. Maybe 'No' really meant 'Yes'. Maybe 'distress' really meant novelty & enjoyment. "Never give a sucker an even break" (W.C. Fields). That's as true in personal affairs as in imperial ambitions. God does not live in police stations, governments, or courts of law.

It's all part & parcel of life & death. Swings & roundabouts. Snakes & ladders. Only lawyers & idiots believe that life's supposed to be perfect. Remember: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Trying to rights the (alleged) wrongs of the past ends up as a screw job!

[Hermit]

The crucial part of what you say is "in cases where the allegation turns out to be true, though possibly unprovable...".

Even if it is true in reality, if it is unprovable the devastating fact of the matter is that the perpetrator must be found not guilty and must therefore escape punishment.

And this is what happens in the real world, devogue. According to RAINN 310 out of every 1000 rapes are reported to police. Out of those 310 reports 57 lead to an arrest, of which 11 cases get referred to prosecutors and barely over half of those finish up with a felony conviction. Even then, one of the seven perpetrators will not serve a custodial sentence. Those are US data, but I expect that data in other western democracies would not differ much.

Are you implying that our justice systems find those accused of sex crimes guilty, and imprison them even if the crime they are charged with cannot be proven? Give me an example.

My proposal accepts this but creates a judicial strategy to ensnare repeat offenders. Of course, the idea of sitting tight and waiting for future victims to come forward is ethically questionable to say the least...

Yes. To say the least indeed. Time to drop it, don't you think, if for no other reason than that it does not resemble justice.

...but if it ensures more secure and definite prosecutions and convictions beyond "her word versus his word" (which will more often than not lead to no prosecution or not guilty verdicts in the event of prosecution because the stakes are so high) then I think it's a good idea.

Get real. What it will lead to is fewer victims reporting rape.

Also, this premise is based on a national/international database of anonymous accusations against particular individuals so rich and famous, poor and unknown would all be covered by it.

You just shot yourself in the foot big time. "My uncle rapes me every time my parents go out and have him minding me." "Well, let's see if there's a pattern before we do anything about it." "I am his only niece." "Oh! OK, we'll just have to wait until he gets more nieces. If they make similar allegations we will definitely have a better chance of successfully prosecuting him. Have a nice day next time you see him alone."

So, if Tom Smith of Coventry has an accusation filed against his name by Victim A in 2011 for anal rape in 2001 while scoring the letter "T" in Victim A's neck but there is no scar or physical evidence it's hard to create a case that will result in conviction.

But if Victim B, who is absolutely unknown to Victim A (and unaware of her ordeal) makes an accusation in 2013 against Tom Smith of Coventry of anal rape in 2002 then the case against Smith is significantly more powerful.

Yes, like the life and crimes of sexual predators are like Groundhog Day.

You really haven' thought this through, devogue.

[Rum]

I'm with you Hermit as regards much of this issue, however I have seen the other side of it too. The second half of my working life was as a schools' officer and one of my department's jobs was investigating allegations against school staff. There were so many that we actually had one post dedicated just to that. This is in a county with 30 or so secondary schools and a couple of hundred primary schools.

The number of allegations was enormous and the majority were never proven. Some careers were ruined by malicious kids and some kids even used to threaten teachers with accusing them of being 'pedos' when things got rough. As soon as an allegation was made the teacher was suspended (on full pay) pending the investigation. You can imagine what it must have been like if you had just run up against a maliscious and nasty kid - or their parent.

Luckily the suspension process has now stopped I believe.

To follow on from the above exchange though - there is no choice. Every case has to be taken on its own merits and seriously too. You can't make any blanket assumption about the cases in general and the veracity of the complaint.

On another note - has anyone listened to the recording of Weinstein trying to get that Italian actress into his hotel room? What a whiney pathetic approach - I thought anyway.

[Animavore]

There's parallels between excuses and victim doubt made here as there was with the apologetics Seth made for the Catholic church.

No one so vigorously defends people against other crimes when allegations are made. No other crime requires the victims to have to run through a gauntlet and have to be vindicated as if they are the one on trial. When we say "innocent until proven guilty" this is only a principal for the courts, it is not necessarily one for everyday life.

I personally know people who have been raped and the perps never caught. Never even publicly accused. A couple by family members they don't want to get into trouble or cause a family rift with for whatever reasons. I was told in confidence. I've never said to any of them, "Show me the evidence your father raped you." "You're doing this for attention." If it's insensitive to do on a personal level it should be equally insensitive on an interpersonal level. I'd only doubt a woman's story if I had a reason to, like they were habitual liars or known shit stirrers - not the opposite way around.

Add to that I know plenty of drug dealers, have known robbers and gangsters, and know of plenty of little scrotes around my way who are technically "innocent", because they've never been caught or had cases thrown out of court while openly mocking the Garda, but it doesn't mean they aren't what people say they are, or what they even claim or boast to be themselves.

[Galaxian]

I'm with you Hermit as regards much of this issue, however I have seen the other side of it too. The second half of my working life was as a schools' officer and one of my department's jobs was investigating allegations against school staff. There were so many that we actually had one post dedicated just to that. This is in a county with 30 or so secondary schools and a couple of hundred primary schools.
The number of allegations was enormous and the majority were never proven. Some careers were ruined by malicious kids and some kids even used to threaten teachers with accusing them of being 'pedos' when things got rough. As soon as an allegation was made the teacher was suspended (on full pay) pending the investigation. You can imagine what it must have been like if you had just run up against a maliscious and nasty kid - or their parent.
Luckily the suspension process has now stopped I believe.
To follow on from the above exchange though - there is no choice. Every case has to be taken on its own merits and seriously too. You can't make any blanket assumption about the cases in general and the veracity of the complaint.
On another note - has anyone listened to the recording of Weinstein trying to get that Italian actress into his hotel room? What a whiney pathetic approach - I thought anyway.

A few real life quotes from school:
Teacher: "Have you had Mr Smith for physics?"
Female student: "All us girls have had Mr Smith. All of us!"

Library session. Student: "Why did you become a teacher?"
Teacher: "Because I like school & relating to children".
Student: "Yes, we already know that you teachers are pedos. That's why."

Former student: "We all know what goes on in that school."

In fact the suspension process is far more prevalent by the individual. Many talented men who would make good teachers refuse to be tarnished with the suspicions, and risk future accusations by delusional & vindictive pupils of long ago. So they 'self-exclude' from that career path, or resign early.

In most countries primary school teaching is now effectively restricted for women teachers only. Secondary or high school teaching still has many men simply because there are not many women qualified to teach science and mathematics. But that will soon be over as well. I have already seen mathematics classes run by language teachers, simply because they are women & hence above suspicion, who don't even have knowledge of linear algebra, but 'teach' it nevertheless. And been told by a head of maths that ability at arithmetic is pointless, since they all have calculators these days... while she was trying to get them (11 year-olds) to discover Pythagoras's Theorem "intellectually" using matchsticks. (Pythagoras was a 40 year old mathematical & philosophical genius when he discovered that).