Wrestling #MeToo #SpeakingOut

[PJ Power]

44 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Are you saying one of the two people accused aren’t innocent until proven guilty?

I'll explain this as concisely as I can.

The maxim of "innocent until proven (or presumed) guilty" or a Presumption of Innocence is a legal standing afforded to the accused/defendant.

Unless there has somehow been a colossal fuck up or major swerve along the way to from accusation to trial, the accuser(s) is/are not the accused. Only the defendants are. Legally, no one else involved in the accusation is given a presumption of innocence or guilt.

[PJ Power]

14 minutes ago, Nick James said:

I don't get how Keith's words are being misinterpreted? Surely he means the accuser should always be believed until proven otherwise? Rather than told they are lying without evidence to say so? Victim blaming is the main reason victims don't come forward.

That is not the way the legal system works in this country or indeed most Western countries - it is up to those making the accusation to provide evidence of their claims. At the same time, a lack of evidence does not mean that they are in fact lying.

I've seen it banded about far too many times that in trials concerning rape/sexual assault that if the defendant is found not guilty, that the accuser was lying - unless the defence is able to provide strong evidence towards their acquittal that the evidence was falsified, then it is likely that the evidence from the prosecution was not strong enough to convict "beyond reasonable doubt". Not surprisingly for a lot of such cases like these, getting a successful conviction is tough.

[Tamura]

I guess it's time some facts and figures are introduced to the thread. In a 2017 report for the Home Office, it was estimated that 4% of sexual violence reports were suspected to be false, compared between 2 and 6% for Europe and the USA, so the UK's figure is broadly consistent with elsewhere. Similarly, a 2010 study (which the BBC reported on in 2018) had a 2 to 10% range, with the FBI put the number of unfounded rape accusations at 8%. The only reason I even mention the earlier study is because the BBC also point out that when looking at the percentage of false claims you also have to look at the number of cases of sexual violence that never even get reported to the police, with an estimate of only 35% sexual assaults being reported to start with. In the 12 months of 2019/2020 the figures cover, official figures show police recorded 55,130 rapes which resulted in 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions. The low prosection rate and high conviction rate may be explained by the Crown Prosecution Service's secret performance targets. Is anyone suggesting that the 53,691 reported rapes for which no conviction occured were also false accusations? That would be a rather unlikely figure of 97.3% being false by the way, for anyone not keeping up. Or perhaps, more obviously, people should argue that people making rape, and other sexual assault, accusations should be believed instead of dismissed?

I'm a full believer in innocent until proven guilty, but it doesn't mean what most people think it means. Innocent until proven guilty applies only to the right of the judicial system to impose punishment on criminals, not on the court of public opinion. If your mum phoned you up and said your best made had gone round her house, kicked the door in and raped her at knifepoint would you say "well innocent until proven guilty, I'm still going out drinking with him"?

[Keith Houchen]

34 minutes ago, PJ Power said:

I'll explain this as concisely as I can.

The maxim of "innocent until proven (or presumed) guilty" or a Presumption of Innocence is a legal standing afforded to the accused/defendant.

Unless there has somehow been a colossal fuck up or major swerve along the way to from accusation to trial, the accuser(s) is/are not the accused. Only the defendants are. Legally, no one else involved in the accusation is given a presumption of innocence or guilt.

My initial reply was based upon Twitter comments saying Allin is IUPG, a lot of these comments suggest the complainant is making the whole thing up. I’m stating that they must apply the maxim they wheel out for their hero to the complainant as well, as they’ve accused her of making it up. I thought it was bleeding obvious that I wasn’t talking in legal defence. 
 

And of course, these pisspipes are the first to think a not guilty verdict equals a false allegation. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Keith Houchen

[PJ Power]

10 minutes ago, Tamura said:

The low prosection rate and high conviction rate may be explained by the Crown Prosecution Service's secret performance targets. Is anyone suggesting that the 53,691 reported rapes for which no conviction occured were also false accusations? That would be a rather unlikely figure of 97.3% being false by the way, for anyone not keeping up. Or perhaps, more obviously, people should argue that people making rape, and other sexual assault, accusations should be believed instead of dismissed?

I've already addressed the point regarding reported rape accusations above, but for the final sentence there is a difference between believing that someone has been raped or sexually assaulted and proving that it happened. To flip the legal standing of taking an accuser's statement as being true or probably true essentially places the burden of proof on the accused, making them guilty unless they can prove otherwise - that is something ripe for a massive increase in miscarriages of justice.

10 minutes ago, Tamura said:

I'm a full believer in innocent until proven guilty, but it doesn't mean what most people think it means. Innocent until proven guilty applies only to the right of the judicial system to impose punishment on criminals, not on the court of public opinion. If your mum phoned you up and said your best made had gone round her house, kicked the door in and raped her at knifepoint would you say "well innocent until proven guilty, I'm still going out drinking with him"?

That's a blatant Appeal to Emotion case right there. Not really a good example in the larger scheme of things.

[Tamura]

1 minute ago, PJ Power said:

That's a blatant Appeal to Emotion case right there. Not really a good example in the larger scheme of things.

No, it''s a straightforward question. Either you're willing go out drinking with someone accused of raping your mum at knifepoint, or you acknowledge that innocent until proven guilty doesn't always apply. Which?

[PJ Power]

2 minutes ago, Tamura said:

No, it''s a straightforward question. Either you're willing go out drinking with someone accused of raping your mum at knifepoint, or you acknowledge that innocent until proven guilty doesn't always apply. Which?

It's nothing more than a loaded question, akin to asking "When did you stop beating your wife".

[PJ Power]

18 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

My initial reply was based upon Twitter comments saying Allin is IUPG, a lot of these comments suggest the complainant is making the whole thing up. I’m stating that they must apply the maxim they wheel out for their hero to the complainant as well, as they’ve accused her of making it up. I thought it was bleeding obvious that I wasn’t talking in legal defence. 
 

And of course, these pisspipes are the first to think a not guilty verdict equals a false allegation. 

Well what do you know, there's shitty people on Twitter! 💩💩

Even if you leave aside any legal terminology behind "Innocent until proven/presumed guilty", if you take any such accusation as to be automatically true then logically that makes the accused as being guilty unless they can otherwise prove their innocence, which depending on how the accusation is framed may be impossible to prove. Can't have it both ways.

[Michael_3165]

Keith is right on this. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise and whilst a not guilty verdict in a criminal case means that there wasn't the evidence doesn't mean the person did it. I'm not all that comfortable with "he said, she said" court of public opinion because people (all people) inherently lie, misinterpret or perceive things in their own ways. Of course depending on what side of the battle they are on. Sadly people often don't report a rape until years later when all physical evidence is destroyed. POlice need to do much more to promote reporting in the moment so that they can get the evidence needed to prosecute.

[Devon Malcolm]

Fucking hell.

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

 I’m saying that the complainant is also innocent until proven guilty as they get accused of making it up by fans. They can’t have it both ways. 

 

39 minutes ago, PJ Power said:

Can't have it both ways.

 

38 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Fucking hell.

 

[Stop the pigeon]

So Jack Gallagher/Claffey has gone back to MMA training in Manchester and looks like he's a trainer as well. Mad how he's allowed to do this and wonder if they know what he did? Hopefully the women there keep their distance from him.

[PJ Power]

Keith clearly doesn't like his stuff thrown right back at them, probably because I've demonstrated that his false application of "innocent until proven guilty" is not the "GOTCHA" they think it is, especially when you take it to its logical step forward that those whom are not the accused that are claiming that the original accuser is lying are themselves "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Keith Houchen]

16 minutes ago, PJ Power said:

Keith clearly doesn't like his stuff thrown right back at them, probably because I've demonstrated that his false application of "innocent until proven guilty" is not the "GOTCHA" they think it is, especially when you take it to its logical step forward that those whom are not the accused that are claiming that the original accuser is lying are themselves "innocent until proven guilty".

 

You’re talking as if I’m using it in a legal setting, I’m using it when arseholes declare their hero as innocent until proven guilty while declaring the allegations are false. I’m saying the person they accuse of the false allegation is innocent of that until it’s proven they made it up. In other words, if you’re saying one person is IUPG, you have to say the other party is too. I’m saying BOTH are innocent until proven guilty. 
 

I’m genuinely struggling here, I thought I’d described the position as clearly as possible. I’ll have one last go

Johnny Kickpadz gets accused by Girlie Trainee of sexual misconduct. @JohnnyKickpadz4lyf jumps to his defence saying “Johnny is a gent, how can you all turn on him! Trial by Twitter! Innocent until proven guilty! Girlie Trainee is a slag who made it all up”

Now, using @JohnnyKickpadz4lyf‘s logic, Girlie Trainee is accused of making it all up so she is ALSO innocent until proven guilty. Either they both are or they aren’t. This ties in with what I posted about bias we have regarding our favourites. 
 

And finally, for both clarity and the benefit of everyone reading this bollocks, I am not saying Tarquin St Robes QC is using this defence at trial, I use it when people only apply IUPG to one person. It’s not a gotcha, or an attempt at one, it’s pointing out BOTH are innocent until proven guilty. And fanboys aren’t keen on that. 

[Tommy!]

As I see it it's just a rebuttal to people who claim the accuser of lying. As such it's a perfectly fine stance to take to try and make anyone who takes a "they are lying because I like X" type approach take a step back and assess their bias.

Is person X guilty, not until proven. Does that mean I can claim person Y is lying, no not until it's proven they are.

It's as perfectly simple concept as I see it, and generally thought it was understood the same by everyone before Perry Mason and Kavanagh QC joined the thread.