Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

almostnever

metrovelvet wrote: »

He has not been convicted. I mean seriously people will not treat him like a rapist unless he is convicted.

I seriously don't know what to even say to that, it's utterly unrealistic. I think I'll stop reading this thread now.

Edit: Actually, aren't some of the posts in this thread indicative of society's attitude towards people who were accused but not convicted of a crime? It seems ridiculous to have read this and then say it wouldn't have any effect on the life of someone accused of rape (which is one of the worst allegations that could ever be made against someone...).

Nevyn

Feeona wrote: »

What's this got to do with the original point of the thread? The facts as we have it is that she dropped the claims several times. Nobody knows why. So why the speculation? How did the thread go in this direction?

I think it's quite disturbing to see an argument going on about whether or not a woman was making up rape claims in a forum for women.

Because the first inital volley of replies were from male posters who identified with the husband and what it would be like to be him and for him to be fasley accused.

HavingCrack

metrovelvet wrote: »

He has not been convicted. I mean seriously people will not treat him like a rapist unless he is convicted.

Are you serious??? Mud sticks and without a proper trial the man will never have a chance to clear his name. There will always be a shadow hanging over him, always suspicions that he did rape her and without a trial that will never go away.

Nevyn

SugarHigh wrote: »

What? Are you seriously suggesting having a rape allegation against your name isn't going to affect you?

why would it as it was pointed out innocent until prove guilty right?

Feeona

Buceph wrote: »

But there are facts, as found by the court. She gave two contradictory statements, a number of times. One of those statements has to have contained a lie, and as such she was convicted of perverting the course of justice. She is proven to be a liar. The idea that we should ignore the damage she has done because she claims she was raped is disingenuous and damaging. Not only has she damaged herself, and as a result will never have her alleged rapist face trial, she has caused damage for people who have and will be raped, and who now think this isn't worth it. And I've said a number of times she's not entirely to blame, but to absolve her of any fault is ridiculous. And to say we shouldn't discuss it because "women" is even worse.

I've never said that she's not to blame. I actually said that she was wasting police time by bringing it to court several times (and I'm coming from the point of view that we don't know if she was raped or not).

I just don't agree with women being constantly asked to explain themselves on something that is highly emotive in a place where women come to chat about things that specifically affect them. I would never go into the gentleman's club and harrass members there by saying things like 'Yeah but we still don't know if he raped her or not' or 'Why are you assuming he didn't rape her?' if most of the members were having a chat about a man being falsely accused. It's a highly emotive issue, and constantly asking men to explain themselves would do nothing but get them riled up. If I did do that, it would be like me implying that you can't trust men, that most men are rapists, I know better, I've been at the receiving end etc.

For the record, I think a man being falsely accused is just as horrifying as a woman being raped just in case I get any more accusations of being a man hater (a post I've reported by the way)

metrovelvet

HavingCrack wrote: »

Are you serious??? Mud sticks and without a proper trial the man will never have a chance to clear his name. There will always be a shadow hanging over him, always suspicions that he did rape her and without a trial that will never go away.

He has no conviction. So what's the problem? He's innocent.

IITYWYBMAD

Thaedydal wrote: »

why would it as it was pointed out innocent until prove guilty right?

I know you're not that stupid. I know you're not. You know it would have an effect on you, the same way any accusation of this kind does. Never hear of the "smoke without fire" brigade?

Wolfe Tone

Thaedydal wrote: »

why would it as it was pointed out innocent until prove guilty right?

So you accept that the man is innocent yeah?

almostnever

Thaedydal wrote: »

why would it as it was pointed out innocent until prove guilty right?

Because a large proportion of the public are stupid enough to believe "there's no smoke without fire"?

This kind of thing is the whole reason for the existence of Defamation Law, like.

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Because the first inital volley of replies were from male posters who identified with the husband and what it would be like to be him and for him to be fasley accused.

Yea that's true but it's still a valid reply imo.
The girl destroyed a case and deserves to be punished. It's in the courts interest to prevent this which is why I have repeatedly mentioned there needs to be help available to accuser in the form of therapy but court proceedings should not be changed because they are there for a reason.

IITYWYBMAD

Silverfish wrote: »

Can you quote w....

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

As we are asking for clarification on matters, what facts do you base your premise that "it happens quite a lit that families of the accused put pressure on the accuser"?

Silverfish, I've addressed your points, could you address mine please?

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

why would it as it was pointed out innocent until prove guilty right?

Yup but it's pretty clear a lot of people here don't take that seriously.

I'd imagine a teacher accused of child abuse would find getting a job to be difficult.

HavingCrack

metrovelvet wrote: »

He has no conviction. So what's the problem? He's innocent.

If your logic functions like that it's pointless debating with you. The phrase 'there's no smoke without fire' applies here. It's irrelevant that he has no conviction, a certain percentage of people will still believe he did it. An allegation of rape against you will always be there regardless of if you're convicted or not, some people will always suspect you committed the crime. A teacher accused of child abuse but not convicted would have difficulty finding employment I'd imagine. If you can't understand this I don't know how to make it any clearer.

enfant terrible

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Would you like us to lock him up, just in case?

No, how did get that from my post?

stimpson

Feeona wrote: »

in case I get any more accusations of being a man hater (a post I've reported by the way)

Eh, it wasn't an accusation.

metrovelvet

HavingCrack wrote: »

If your logic functions like that it's pointless debating with you. The phrase 'there's no smoke without fire' applies here. It's irrelevant that he has no conviction, a certain percentage of peopel will still believe he did it. An allegation of rape against you will always be there regardles of if you're convicted or not, some people will always suspect you did it. If you can't understand this I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Then dont debate with me. Im just an irrational woman right? This isnt tied to the rules and logic of debate either.

Feeona

stimpson wrote: »

Eh, it wasn't an accusation.

What wasn't an accusation?

Nevyn

HavingCrack wrote: »

If your logic functions like that it's pointless debating with you. The phrase 'there's no smoke without fire' applies here. It's irrelevant that he has no conviction, a certain percentage of people will still believe he did it. An allegation of rape against you will always be there regardless of if you're convicted or not, some people will always suspect you committed the crime. A teacher accused of child abuse but not convicted would have difficulty finding employment I'd imagine. If you can't understand this I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Would that not give rise to men* looking for and pushing for the system to be changed so that there is not so much of a question mark when a case collapses or is never complied by the DPP to be prosecuted?

The system atm has a huge drop off rate of women that do report and get as far as the garda but out of that only 2 go as far as reaching the DPP and out of those that do an even smaller amount ever get a court date never mind a full trial to a conviction or an aquittal.

*werid to be having to make that assertion in the ladies lounge but still.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Then dont debate with me. Im just an irrational woman right? This isnt tied to the rules and logic of debate either.

lol at you trying to attach a common sexist argument to someone who never said anything like that just so you can poison the well.

almostnever

metrovelvet wrote: »

Then dont debate with me. Im just an irrational woman right? This isnt tied to the rules and logic of debate either.

Yes, that is exactly what he/she was saying. Whenever anyone, male or female, ever disagrees with whatever a woman is saying, they are clearly only doing so because they deem her to be "just an irrational woman." :rolleyes:

Feeona

I think we should all stop dilly-dallying around the topic and actually come out and say it-orgy anyone?:)

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Would that not give rise to men looking for and pushing for the system to be changed so that there is not so much of a question mark when a case collapses or is never complied by the DPP to be prosecuted?

The system atm has a huge drop off rate of women that do report and get as far as the garda but out of that only 2 go as far as reaching the DPP and out of those that do an even smaller amount ever get a court date never mind a full trial to a conviction or an aquittal.

It's not the system that gives men proven innocent a hard time it's the public. The best way to avoid it is to not publish the names of people accused until they are proven to be guilty. This was proposed but the feminists shot it down.

stimpson

Feeona wrote: »

What wasn't an accusation?

I didn't accuse you of being a man hater. I was wondering why you thought a womans forum was the wrong place to be disusing the topic, as if women should take her side because of a shared gender.

I apologise if you took offence.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

Would that not give rise to men looking for and pushing for the system to be changed so that there is not so much of a question mark when a case collapses or is never complied by the DPP to be prosecuted?.

Are men pushing for that now?

Silverfish

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Silverfish, I've addressed your points, could you address mine please?

I'm sorry, I was driving home from work.

I've witnessed it myself, that families of people accused of rape will abuse the alleged victim in the street, or try 'talk' them out of pressing charges.

It happened in the infamous Kerry case, support was shown for the accused rather than the victim.


It happens all over the world - honour killings being the biggest example, where women are murdered by their own families if they are raped.

So it wouldn't be a huge leap of imagination if we were to assume that if this woman was raped, her husband's family discovered she was pressing charges, and tried to 'talk' her out of it.

hondasam

SugarHigh wrote: »

Yea it is true. Even if someone is a rapist but no one can prove it then they should be considered innocent.

that still makes them guilty, If we were the jury now how many of us would say he is guilty?

SugarHigh

Silverfish like I already said you could find examples of women making up rape accusations and then apply it to this case but why would you?

Just because it is possible and has happened before doesn't give it any credibility.

Wolfe Tone

Silverfish wrote: »

I'm sorry, I was driving home from work.

I've witnessed it myself, that families of people accused of rape will abuse the alleged victim in the street, or try 'talk' them out of pressing charges.

It happened in the infamous Kerry case, support was shown for the accused rather than the victim.


It happens all over the world - honour killings being the biggest example, where women are murdered by their own families if they are raped.

So it wouldn't be a huge leap of imagination if we were to assume that if this woman was raped, her husband's family discovered she was pressing charges, and tried to 'talk' her out of it.

Equally it wouldn't be a huge leap to say she is a liar would it?

SugarHigh

hondasam wrote: »

that still makes them guilty, If we were the jury now how many of us would say he is guilty?

The jury can't just decide someone is guilty without proof.

keane2097

Thaedydal wrote: »

why would it as it was pointed out innocent until prove guilty right?

metrovelvet wrote: »

He has no conviction. So what's the problem? He's innocent.

Seriously, the pair of ye would want to cop yourselves on.

Is it any wonder you find people inspired to argue against any and all points of view you will ever take when you insist on peddling such a disingenuous, patronising argument.

So childish.