Love-Wilcox Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 17 minutes ago, Chris B said: The issue is that this approach overwhelmingly favours rapists and abusers. The vast, vast majority of cases are 'he said, she said'. That's one of the reasons #MeToo had such an impact - when you have a number of women separately making similar allegations, even if none of them are able to be verified, it's far more convincing. I wholeheartedly agree. I just think we should be able to ask questions on a public forum like this without it being insinuated that those who do are somehow nonce apologists or the like. That isn’t really an environment where healthy debate can happen IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 25 minutes ago, Love-Wilcox said: I wholeheartedly agree. I just think we should be able to ask questions on a public forum like this without it being insinuated that those who do are somehow nonce apologists or the like. That isn’t really an environment where healthy debate can happen IMO. Some cunts are cunts and don't need debating, healthy or otherwise. I suppose the real question is why do you feel so strongly about sticking up for these sorts of people? You must realise the impression it gives. I'm curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Love-Wilcox said: When someone is accused with little to no supporting evidence Exactly what "supporting evidence" do you expect when dealing with crimes that aren't immediately reported? I must have missed all the forensic evidence in the R Kelly trial, yet he was found guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love-Wilcox Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Tamura said: Exactly what "supporting evidence" do you expect when dealing with crimes that aren't immediately reported? I must have missed all the forensic evidence in the R Kelly trial, yet he was found guilty. That’s entirely my point. With these types of crimes it’s incredibly difficult to get to the whole truth of the matter. If someone is found guilty in court then I’m all for a harsh sentence befitting the severity of the crime but otherwise, what’s to be done when there’s no clear objective truth? For the record; do I think Joey is likely guilty of the things he’s been accused of? Yes, probably. Do I think it’s best he no longer works in the wrestling industry? Yes. Do I think he should be sacked from every public facing job he might ever work? I’m honestly not sure. 21 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said: Some cunts are cunts and don't need debating, healthy or otherwise. I suppose the real question is why do you feel so strongly about sticking up for these sorts of people? You must realise the impression it gives. I'm curious. It’s not my intent to “stick up” for anyone. If that’s what you think then either my words aren’t being taken at face value or I’m failing to communicate my thoughts adequately. Edited June 30, 2022 by Love-Wilcox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted June 30, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted June 30, 2022 47 minutes ago, Love-Wilcox said: I just think we should be able to ask questions on a public forum like this without it being insinuated that those who do are somehow nonce apologists or the like. 1 hour ago, Love-Wilcox said: Regardless of your answer, shouldn’t we at least be able to ask the question itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Love-Wilcox said: If someone is found guilty in court then I’m all for a harsh sentence befitting the severity of the crime but otherwise, what’s to be done when there’s no clear objective truth? When it comes to the criminal justice system, in any country, there's no such thing as the "clear objective truth". An awful lot hinges on the quality of defence and prosecution barristers, the attitude of the judge, and more often than not who's on the jury. To illustrate the latter point, at trial Delroy Grant (aka the Night Stalker) advanced a theory that his ex-wife had stored his semen for over a decade and had conspired with a male accomplice to plant the semen at multiple crime scenes in order to frame Grant. Now, if the "clear objective truth" did in fact exist all twelve jurors would have said Grant was guilty, since as defences go that's an atrociously bad one. However he was actually found guilty only on a 10-2 majority, despite his DNA being present at multiple crime scenes. Investigating officer Colin Sutton deals with the verdict in his book on the case, and says he ran into one of the jurors on the case and was told "that the two reluctant jurors had said, from the very start of the trial, before a word of evidence had been heard, that their mistrust of the police and the establishment was such that they would as a matter of principle, never convict anyone of anything". One jury of twelve might come to one conclusion, another jury of twelve might come to a different conclusion. Neither one should be classed as the "clear objective truth". Edited June 30, 2022 by Tamura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love-Wilcox Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 5 minutes ago, Tamura said: When it comes to the criminal justice system, in any country, there's no such thing as the "clear objective truth". An awful lot hinges on the quality of defence and prosecutation barristers, the attitude of the judge, and more often than not who's on the jury. To illustrate the latter point, at trial Delroy Grant (aka the Night Stalker) advanced a theory that his ex-wife had stored his semen for over a decade and had conspired with a male accomplice to plant the semen at multiple crime scenes in order to frame Grant. Now, if the "clear objective truth" did in fact exist all twelve jurors would have said Grant was guilty, since as defences go that's an atrociously bad one. However he was actually found guilty only on a 10-2 majority, despite his DNA being present at multiple crime scenes. Investigating officer Colin Sutton deals with the verdict in his book on the case, and says he ran into one of the jurors on the case and was told "that the two reluctant jurors had said, from the very start of the trial, before a word of evidence had been heard, that their mistrust of the police and the establishment was such that they would as a matter of principle, never convict anyone of anything". One jury of twelve might come to one conclusion, another jury of twelve might come to a different conclusion. Neither one should be classed as the "clear objective truth". Right. I’m clearly wording it terribly. What do we do about cases that never even make it to court or sometimes aren’t even reported to the police? Do we treat these accused the same way we’d treat someone with a guilty verdict? Why and to what degree? I’m not trying to prove a point, I genuinely want to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cousin Jim Bob Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Love-Wilcox said: Right. I’m clearly wording it terribly. What do we do about cases that never even make it to court or sometimes aren’t even reported to the police? Do we treat these accused the same way we’d treat someone with a guilty verdict? Why and to what degree? I’m not trying to prove a point, I genuinely want to know. Chris B wrote a great post summing up Joey Ryan earlier in this thread. But to repeat. If this is a hill you want to be on. Joey Ryan apologised to the wrestling world for being a sex pest but then took his accusers to court in multi million dollar cases. All of which were then thrown out. As much of a disgrace and scummy as wrestling is. The fact the whole industry has turned their back on him should tell you something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_3165 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) On 6/28/2022 at 8:49 PM, Hannibal Scorch said: He’s working at Disneyland in California. @Keith Houchenthe replies are interesting. A few people saying he should be “aloud to work and earn a living”. And I agree. Like Jimmy Havoc if you’re blackballed from wrestling you should be able to still work. Just not around minors. Has he got a criminal conviction that bars him from working around youngsters? Ah just seen previous post Edited June 30, 2022 by Michael_3165 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_3165 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 3 hours ago, Love-Wilcox said: I wholeheartedly agree. I just think we should be able to ask questions on a public forum like this without it being insinuated that those who do are somehow nonce apologists or the like. That isn’t really an environment where healthy debate can happen IMO. You'll get used to it! On a side note, I'm extremely concerned if any jury is made up of most people on here. The subject is emotive and rightly so. And at the same time, we must look at FACTS not claims. Ban people w convictions from jobs involving vulnerable people. Lock them away. Though you MUST have evidence to support that. I don't imagine any person here wants a trial by social media and/or without a fair process. People lie...on all sides. I'm not making assumptions about anyone. On q side note, I have worked w serial killers, rapists, molesters, arsonists, armed robbers etc. I have to be neutral whilst also having strong emotions about people I work with. I do have a unique perspective which brings nuance, something that isn't all that fashionable in 2022. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 6 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said: I do have a unique perspective which brings nuance, something that isn't all that fashionable in 2022 Aye, real neutral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 I think this would be a more interesting discussion without all the ad hominem attacks chaps. How we deal with sexual misconduct allegations in the social media era is an area for interesting debate, as the law is not keeping up with moral standards and is creating a justice gap, as it were. I’ve yet to see any good answers, and it would be nice to think here at least on UKFF we could discuss it like adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted June 30, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, Loki said: How we deal with sexual misconduct allegations in the social media era is an area for interesting debate You just delete the thread and pretend they didn't exist I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, Loki said: I think this would be a more interesting discussion without all the ad hominem attacks chaps. How we deal with sexual misconduct allegations in the social media era is an area for interesting debate, as the law is not keeping up with moral standards and is creating a justice gap, as it were. I’ve yet to see any good answers, and it would be nice to think here at least on UKFF we could discuss it like adults. Well go and fucking start one then, Volvo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 That’s a Porsche now, Black Lung. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.