Jump to content

Wrestling #MeToo #SpeakingOut


Keith Houchen

Recommended Posts

And, again, until they are proven to have made it up, the women coming forward are indeed innocent until proven guilty. 
 

There are loads who haven’t come forward because they think what they experienced is minor compared to rape, as if there is a points system in place and that’s horrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

This is what #IBelieveHer is all about. These are stories that, by their nature, lack evidence.

In rape cases, even ones with visible marks, bruises, cuts and tears have been explained away as 'rough sex gone wrong'. Most abuse cases don't happen in front of cameras or witnesses. 

These are incredibly difficult things to prove. The legal system fails women horrendously. And it's incredibly easy to dismiss women by putting the legal bar so high. 

And the fact that all this argument is being kicked off by a post by Phil fucking Powers is laughable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chris B said:

These are incredibly difficult things to prove. The legal system fails women horrendously. And it's incredibly easy to dismiss women by putting the legal bar so high.

There's no arguing this point however that doesn't mean the alternative is to simply believe every single allegation regardless, assuming the absolute worst of those accused despite the lack of evidence. Isn't there room for a nuanced discussion here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen other people coming forward alongside this to highlight instances of psychological abuse and physical assault in all levels of the business, from training to on shows. I hope the legit are evidence mounts up to turf out as many of offenders of all types as possible. This could be a watershed moment for British wrestling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Love-Wilcox said:

There's no arguing this point however that doesn't mean the alternative is to simply believe every single allegation regardless, assuming the absolute worst of those accused despite the lack of evidence. Isn't there room for a nuanced discussion here?

It’s about creating an environment where survivors can speak and report WITHOUT the automatic assumption they aren’t being truthful. Can you imagine if burglary was treated in the same way? “Were they robbed though? They did leave their window open and surely that’s inviting trouble. They had a big TV delivered in broad daylight as well so they were flaunting it. Plus they live in a dodgy neighbourhood so what did they expect. It sounds like an insurance job to me”

Edited by Keith Houchen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly when it comes to proof it must be beyond reasonable doubt. That requires a fair degree of proof. I guess the Q is do you want innocent until proven guilty? That in itself gives the message we should only trust people alleging crimes when they have total proof. That's uncomfortable for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said:

It’s about creating an environment where survivors can speak and report WITHOUT the automatic assumption they aren’t being truthful. Can you imagine if burglary was treated in the same way? “Were they robbed though? They did leave their window open and surely that’s inviting trouble. They had a big TV delivered in broad daylight as well so they were flaunting it. Plus they live in a dodgy neighbourhood so what did they expect. It sounds like an insurance job to me”

But burglaries are treated that way. First comes evidence the burglary happened. If police can't find evidence someone broke in or anything is missing they don't assume it happened and proceeded to prosecute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael_3165 said:

But burglaries are treated that way. First comes evidence the burglary happened. If police can't find evidence someone broke in or anything is missing they don't assume it happened and proceeded to prosecute. 

Who do they prosecute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Who do they prosecute?

The prosecute only if there is evidence of a crime. That's my point. They wouldn't assume every alleged burglary victim is being honest until they have proof it's happened. It's sad but having worked for the police that's how the whole thing works. He said/she said proof isn't enough in the UK and some would say rightfully. 

There's no real easy solution to this problem. It's a shit show all round aand guys get away w horrendous behaviour because there is little material evidence. But if you don't demand material evidence then anyone can claim anything and get anyone in trouble.. Its hard to work through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris B said:

Well, now we're established to be dealing with someone with a deep understanding of women...

 

What kind of proof would satisfy you? Considering even rape is so incredibly difficult to prove, and so many of these stories are about what happens with two people, just what kind of proof can you imagine being enough?

I understand what your saying. Though we will only see portions from both sides.

Hopefully the police have access to everything so they can make that absolute judgement. 

If you've watched 'when they see us on Netflix' it shows how bad a wrongful conviction can be.

The village I'm originally from had a lady that made rape allegations against 2 locals. 2 years later she had reported rapes to the police 6 more times. On one of the occasions the person wasn't even with her. I am not saying this is the case here, though that person was suicidal at the time as everyone was talking about him. This was before social media so could be have been a whole lot worse. It took ages for the facts to be corrected on this when people realised she cried wolf, shit sticks.

So yes for me it does have to be beyond reasonable doubt. And many of these cases from what I've read do seem to be beyond reasonable doubt.

It'll be no good tweeting quotes about being kind, or stuff about truth if a tragedy happens. 3 out of all 4 suicides are men. The guilty ones probably couldn't care and their personality type will continue to portray themselves as innocent- yet the damage it will do to an innocent one who has done nothing wrong to have everything taken away maybe final.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
16 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said:

Sadly when it comes to proof it must be beyond reasonable doubt. That requires a fair degree of proof. I guess the Q is do you want innocent until proven guilty? That in itself gives the message we should only trust people alleging crimes when they have total proof. That's uncomfortable for me. 

I'm not suggesting moving away from 'innocent until proven guilty' as a legal basis. But for a long time, I thought that was a perfect, pure maxim. And now I realise that it's horribly flawed, routinely lets down women, and is merely the best option as anything else would be even more flawed.

Again, the point of #MeToo was that almost every woman you know has been sexually harrassed or assaulted to some degree. That it's absolutely endemic in our culture.

What you find when women speak out about someone is that they're rarely the only ones. And that's to be encouraged. 

Also, this is not all or nothing.

For the less extreme stories, letting other women openly know 'this guy is a creep' doesn't mean destroying their career. A lot of the time, it means people being wary and less trusting of them. It can also be an opportunity for them to cop on and learn and mature. Look at how Dan Harmon treated admitting his own sexual harrassment, for example.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said:

The prosecute only if there is evidence of a crime.

No. They prosecute if there is evidence that a person committed the crime. In every instance they issue a crime number that the victims can give to insurance companies, thus their statement is believed as a default. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...