Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

questions raised by the michael le vell case


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#21 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:55 AM

Surely his accuser now should have her name made public?


No, but if there is any hint that this was malicious accusation, it should be investigated and, if found, prosecuted.

LUNEW.jpg


#22 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:15 PM

How exactly do they estimate there are 78000 rapes every year? And does it include male rape, which is not exactly unknown.

Edited by Johnoco, 12 September 2013 - 12:17 PM.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#23 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:40 PM

How exactly do they estimate there are 78000 rapes every year? And does it include male rape, which is not exactly unknown.

 

There's a stat which comes from the British Crime Survey (which often records more crime than is reported to the police).  I don't know if it comes from there.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#24 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:42 PM

There's a stat which comes from the British Crime Survey (which often records more crime than is reported to the police).  I don't know if it comes from there.

 

Ah, here we are ...


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#25 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:57 PM

I agree with most of that.

 

I really don't get all the black/white conclusions being drawn on this.  In short, a jury found at least reasonable doubt that he did the crimes as charged, they didn't, and couldn't, find him "innocent".

 

I much prefer the Scottish system where there's a verdict of "not proven" available as well.  Historically, "not guilty" in Scotland means the jury find you innocent whereas "not proven" means that there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury but not enough of one to be conclusive as to the innocence of the accused.  Both are acquittals, one means that the accused cannot go around saying he was innocent though.  I think it would be a good alternative verdict for rape trials where it makes it less black and white, a "not guilty" gives innocence to the accused, a "guilty" validates the accuser and a "not proven" means the accused cannot go around calling the accuser a liar while the accuser cannot go around calling the accused a rapist.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#26 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:17 PM

Surely his accuser now should have her name made public?


Warm up the tar whilst I fetch the feathers.

#27 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:08 PM

Warm up the tar whilst I fetch the feathers.


That is exactly the attitude of many feminist groups.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#28 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:20 PM

That is exactly the attitude of many feminist groups.


There are plenty of feminists on here and I've seen no evidence of that attitude. Which groups have issued statements implying that that is their attitude in this case?

#29 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:28 PM

That article wgave an excellent summary of online debate. Far too many people will decide without any real knowledge of the situation.

Both extremes are as bad as each other. The feminists who see all men as potential rapists help contribute to the uncaring attitude from some in these cases, as does their muddying of the waters around what constitutes rape. There are a number of feminists that will state that a man cannot in any circumstance have sex with a 'drunk' woman without it being rape as she cannot give her consent. Well if that's the case I've been raped many times! To me this undermines the far more serious cases of rape that occur by men (or women) that know full well what they are doing.

I've no idea whether Le Vell is guilty or not but the the #ibelieveher hashtag is ludicrous in my opinion.

Edited by Maximus Decimus, 12 September 2013 - 06:30 PM.


#30 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:31 PM

There are plenty of feminists on here and I've seen no evidence of that attitude. Which groups have issued statements implying that that is their attitude in this case?


Technically I'm a feminist but I think there is an understanding that when people say 'feminist' they usually mean the radical feminists.

#31 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:39 PM

Technically I'm a feminist but I think there is an understanding that when people say 'feminist' they usually mean the radical feminists.

So perhaps it would be wise not to quote a very small proportion of a group as representative of the overwhelming majority.

Muslims are terrorists, Scousers are funny etc.

Edited by Larry the Leit, 12 September 2013 - 06:40 PM.


#32 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:54 PM

So perhaps it would be wise not to quote a very small proportion of a group as representative of the overwhelming majority.

Muslims are terrorists, Scousers are funny etc.


It's similar to the term atheists for me. There are many atheists that just don't believe in God but when the media or people reference 'atheists' they generally mean outspoken atheists. It's the same with feminists, most people IMO are feminists but there are those who self-identify as feminists and these are often the radical sort.

Personally I usually would use the term radfems when talking about it.

#33 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,481 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:13 PM

It's similar to the term atheists for me. There are many atheists that just don't believe in God but when the media or people reference 'atheists' they generally mean outspoken atheists. It's the same with feminists, most people IMO are feminists but there are those who self-identify as feminists and these are often the radical sort.

Personally I usually would use the term radfems when talking about it.

 

Well that is misusing the term. It's like saying the term Christian refers to just those right-wing bigots who seem to despise most of humanity for one reason or another. A feminist is someone who believes women to be the equal of men. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. Although extreme examples of feminists and atheists do exist they should not be allowed to define the terms.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#34 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:50 PM

Well that is misusing the term. It's like saying the term Christian refers to just those right-wing bigots who seem to despise most of humanity for one reason or another. A feminist is someone who believes women to be the equal of men. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. Although extreme examples of feminists and atheists do exist they should not be allowed to define the terms.


You're preaching to the converted but it's the reality of how many use them. Criticising people for using terms that are already widely in use is a bit pedantic IMO.

#35 fieldofclothofgold

fieldofclothofgold
  • Coach
  • 5,559 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:04 AM

I agree with most of that.

 

I really don't get all the black/white conclusions being drawn on this.  In short, a jury found at least reasonable doubt that he did the crimes as charged, they didn't, and couldn't, find him "innocent".

 

I much prefer the Scottish system where there's a verdict of "not proven" available as well.  Historically, "not guilty" in Scotland means the jury find you innocent whereas "not proven" means that there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury but not enough of one to be conclusive as to the innocence of the accused.  Both are acquittals, one means that the accused cannot go around saying he was innocent though.  I think it would be a good alternative verdict for rape trials where it makes it less black and white, a "not guilty" gives innocence to the accused, a "guilty" validates the accuser and a "not proven" means the accused cannot go around calling the accuser a liar while the accuser cannot go around calling the accused a rapist.

So Levell can or cant say he was found innocent and can say I am innocent?


but you and I weve been through that and this is not our fate.
So let us so let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

JAMIE PEACOCK

#36 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:24 AM

So Levell can or cant say he was found innocent and can say I am innocent?


You cannot say he was "found innocent" because it would be untrue. He wasn't. He was found "not guilty".

LUNEW.jpg


#37 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 10:27 AM

You cannot say he was "found innocent" because it would be untrue. He wasn't. He was found "not guilty".

This...

 

It's a point about the law that I've never really liked because there are too many people who only see absolutes and the verdict of "not guilty" in England really doesn't lend itself to an absolute.  To the feminists, he's only not guilty because the jury weren't fully convinced but he probably did it.  To his friends and family, he's utterly innocent because the jury said not guilty.  In reality, the truth could be either but it could be some point inbetween as well.  I'd like juries to be able to say that he was "not guilty because it wasn't proven and there was reasonable doubt" or "not guilty because he's innocent".

 

A perfect example is the OJ Simpson trials.  In a criminal court, he was found "not guilty" but a civil court with a lower burden of proof said he did it.  If you looked at it like some people with absolutes did at the time of the trial then Simpson was innocent.  Those same people reacted with incredulity when the civil court said that on the balance of probabilities that Simpson did the two murders.

 

For these very sensitive trials such as rape, it's really not serving justice well enough to allow some people to go back to their community saying they're innocent but really are only on the street because the prosecution couldn't get over the burden of proof hurdle.  It's also not serving justice to have a genuinely innocent defendant have the persistent doubt about him about whether he "got away with it".  Note, I am specifically not referring to this Le Vell case, I wasn't there for the evidence and can only refer to the snippets that the media chose for us to read.

On a different view of it, if a jury said "innocent" then this brings into play the other options of action against the accuser, naming her and so on.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#38 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,792 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 11:11 AM

 

You cannot say he was "found innocent" because it would be untrue. He wasn't. He was found "not guilty".


I had a similar discussion with someone yesterday who was initially adamant that the not guilty verdict clearly meant he was innocent. The best way of dismissing that viewpoint is simply to say if you saw someone committing a crime with your own eyes but that person subsequently got a not guilty verdict in court would you then say that the person is innocent despite having knowledge of their guilt ? You could not logically say they were innocent just because they were found not guilty. 

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#39 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:36 PM

This...
 
It's a point about the law that I've never really liked because there are too many people who only see absolutes and the verdict of "not guilty" in England really doesn't lend itself to an absolute.  To the feminists, he's only not guilty because the jury weren't fully convinced but he probably did it.  To his friends and family, he's utterly innocent because the jury said not guilty.  In reality, the truth could be either but it could be some point inbetween as well.  I'd like juries to be able to say that he was "not guilty because it wasn't proven and there was reasonable doubt" or "not guilty because he's innocent".
 
A perfect example is the OJ Simpson trials.  In a criminal court, he was found "not guilty" but a civil court with a lower burden of proof said he did it.  If you looked at it like some people with absolutes did at the time of the trial then Simpson was innocent.  Those same people reacted with incredulity when the civil court said that on the balance of probabilities that Simpson did the two murders.
 
For these very sensitive trials such as rape, it's really not serving justice well enough to allow some people to go back to their community saying they're innocent but really are only on the street because the prosecution couldn't get over the burden of proof hurdle.  It's also not serving justice to have a genuinely innocent defendant have the persistent doubt about him about whether he "got away with it".  Note, I am specifically not referring to this Le Vell case, I wasn't there for the evidence and can only refer to the snippets that the media chose for us to read.

On a different view of it, if a jury said "innocent" then this brings into play the other options of action against the accuser, naming her and so on.


The thing with the "not proven" verdict is that it does leave a cloud of suspicion over you for the rest of your life. For some as horrendous as raping a six year old, this not something to be taken lightly. And if "beyond reasonable doubt" is not required then it's very easily inflicted.

#40 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:43 PM

So perhaps it would be wise not to quote a very small proportion of a group as representative of the overwhelming majority


I'm not so sure that the proportion of feminist groups who genuinely believe 'all men are rapists' is that small though.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users