Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: greenwichvilla on September 22, 2010, 01:47:02 PM
-
It's another Season of Sleaze
Titus Bramble arrested on suspicion of rape. Footballers, eh?
http://bit.ly/9k8THJ
-
With their money you think they'd just pay for posh hookers.
-
He'll be down for 30 years with his terrible defence.
-
It probably wasn't rape, it was just his trademark clumsy tackle in her box
-
In his defence he will state that it was the first time that he made a pass at anybody.
-
It probably wasn't rape, it was just his trademark clumsy tackle in her box
That was funny, wasn't it?
-
Its outrageous for poor titus - i can't believe the press are allowed to print this sort of fact based story against a premier league hero in this day and age.
-
Its outrageous for poor titus - i can't believe the press are allowed to print this sort of fact based story against a premier league hero in this day and age.
At least not wiithout four seperate court injunctions taken out first.
-
I predict that this won’t see trial.
-
Aside from all the obviously hilarious comments about a woman getting raped, you're still innocent until proven guilty in this country regardless of how famous you are so tread carefully.
Personally I'm with Craig Charles on this one, the identity of the accused should be protected until it's been established that he's done something wrong.
-
Hasn't he been accused of something like this before? To be fair to the guy this is all in the public domain and he may not even be charged.
-
The problem isn’t about protecting the identity; it should be about increasing the conviction rate. Only 6% of men who are brought to trial are convicted, yet it is thought that 1 in 20 women have been raped.
It’s something of a disgrace, but it’s quite possibly the most challenging area of criminal law. You read cases like R v Bree and you can see just how difficult a decision it is for anybody to make.
-
Aside from all the obviously hilarious comments about a woman getting raped, you're still innocent until proven guilty in this country regardless of how famous you are so tread carefully.
Personally I'm with Craig Charles on this one, the identity of the accused should be protected until it's been established that he's done something wrong.
Like OJ?
-
you're still innocent until proven guilty in this country regardless of how famous you are so tread carefully.
This reminds me of Michael Corleone's girlfriend Kay in The Godfather:"Presidents don't have people killed Michael".
-
Personally I'm with Craig Charles on this one, the identity of the accused should be protected until it's been established that he's done something wrong.
I definitely agree with that.
-
Which is part of the problem we have with regards to rape in this country.
-
Personally I'm with Craig Charles on this one, the identity of the accused should be protected until it's been established that he's done something wrong.
Craig Charles should be incarcerated for his dreadful cheesy 'banter' he engages in on his show on 6Music.
-
Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country? I think not. I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.
-
Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Johnny, I like the MUSIC he plays, I don't like him. Is that okay?
-
Johnny, I like the MUSIC he plays, I don't like him. Is that okay?
[/quote]
Fine Chris, to clarify, I meant more in a don't pay attention/filter it out sort of way rather than switch it off. Just out of interest, isn't 6music closing soon? Or did they call that off?
-
Called it off.
-
The problem isn’t about protecting the identity; it should be about increasing the conviction rate. Only 6% of men who are brought to trial are convicted, yet it is thought that 1 in 20 women have been raped.
It’s something of a disgrace, but it’s quite possibly the most challenging area of criminal law. You read cases like R v Bree and you can see just how difficult a decision it is for anybody to make.
The 6% figure has been misunderstood by some and deliberately misapplied by others. The trial conviction rate is actually 58%, which is actually a bit higher than for most other offences and, given the nature of most rape cases ('stranger' rapes are quite rare, the allegation is normally in the context of an existing or former relationship) could be seen as surprisingly high.
They've changed the law on rape itself, introduced dedicated and specialist police officers, use ABE interviews and special measures in court and have limited the extent to which you can cross examine the complainants, all in an attempt to increase conviction rates.
All fine, but there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.
-
We have a thread about rape in the football bit? And a thread about gays in football in off-topic...where's BE when you need him?
-
Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country? I think not. I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.
I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.
-
Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country? I think not. I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.
I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.
Thats great in theory, but this world is full of mindless idiots. People are often in situations where their innocence has been proved, yet still have to put up with abuse from said idiots. Just ask Dave Jones the Cardiff manager. He was proved innocent, yet still has to put up with vile comments at a lot of football grounds.
There are a lot of people with the viewpoint: "no smoke without fire". Reputations can be shattered, familys can be hurt and so on. In my opinion, under no circumstance should the accused or victims name be released until guilt is proven. There is too much at stake.
-
there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.
Usually when a footballer has sex it is in a room full of people. You'd think there would be plenty of witnesses
-
Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country? I think not. I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.
I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.
Not saying that at all, I just didn't see the relevance of bringing in cases from other countries. I would have no problem with the media reporting on court cases if they would do it in a less sensationalistic way but the sunday tabloids are probably falling over themselves trying to find people willing to dish the dirt on Bramble in the same way as they did with Craig Charles. I would definitely say that anonimity should be protected in cases such as rape, regardless of who the accused is.
-
The problem isn’t about protecting the identity; it should be about increasing the conviction rate. Only 6% of men who are brought to trial are convicted, yet it is thought that 1 in 20 women have been raped.
It’s something of a disgrace, but it’s quite possibly the most challenging area of criminal law. You read cases like R v Bree and you can see just how difficult a decision it is for anybody to make.
The 6% figure has been misunderstood by some and deliberately misapplied by others. The trial conviction rate is actually 58%, which is actually a bit higher than for most other offences and, given the nature of most rape cases ('stranger' rapes are quite rare, the allegation is normally in the context of an existing or former relationship) could be seen as surprisingly high.
They've changed the law on rape itself, introduced dedicated and specialist police officers, use ABE interviews and special measures in court and have limited the extent to which you can cross examine the complainants, all in an attempt to increase conviction rates.
All fine, but there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.
Edit: I've miss read my quote. Its 6% of all rape cases result in conviction, which still emphasises my point, that from the point of complaint, 94% of men will not be prosecuted, despite BCS figures suggesting 23% of women have been raped (and also 3% of men sexually assaulted). Government statistics indicate that 75-85% of rapes are never reported (you'd assume these being spouse rapes). That is a disgrace.
SOA 2003 has clarified the law somewhat with regards to rape, but given how most cases invariably involve intoxication and how most women know the male involved, then you’re still dealing in a minefield with regards to the reasonable belief in consent.
-
Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country? I think not. I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.
I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.
Not saying that at all, I just didn't see the relevance of bringing in cases from other countries. I would have no problem with the media reporting on court cases if they would do it in a less sensationalistic way but the sunday tabloids are probably falling over themselves trying to find people willing to dish the dirt on Bramble in the same way as they did with Craig Charles. I would definitely say that anonimity should be protected in cases such as rape, regardless of who the accused is.
I don't read the tabloids so thats probably the answer. Going back to the earlier point if we weren't allowed to see the evidence in a case before conviction we wouldn't have seen the cctv footage of Gerrard. Would you say that would be a good thing?
-
Lovejoy; no, I don't think that would have been a good thing. I'm more concerned about the accused in rape/sexual abuse cases where there is a huge stigma attatched rather than somebody getting into a fight in a bar. I just think there is a huge difference between these two types of case. As for the tabloids, a lot of people do read them so the muck gets widely spread; as I'm sure you know, many people have a "they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true" attitude and so gossip gets taken as fact.
-
there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.
Usually when a footballer has sex it is in a room full of people. You'd think there would be plenty of witnesses
This is true, but they lost their moral compass climbing the north face of Mount Wonga.
-
The problem isn’t about protecting the identity; it should be about increasing the conviction rate. Only 6% of men who are brought to trial are convicted, yet it is thought that 1 in 20 women have been raped.
It’s something of a disgrace, but it’s quite possibly the most challenging area of criminal law. You read cases like R v Bree and you can see just how difficult a decision it is for anybody to make.
The 6% figure has been misunderstood by some and deliberately misapplied by others. The trial conviction rate is actually 58%, which is actually a bit higher than for most other offences and, given the nature of most rape cases ('stranger' rapes are quite rare, the allegation is normally in the context of an existing or former relationship) could be seen as surprisingly high.
They've changed the law on rape itself, introduced dedicated and specialist police officers, use ABE interviews and special measures in court and have limited the extent to which you can cross examine the complainants, all in an attempt to increase conviction rates.
All fine, but there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.
Edit: I've miss read my quote. Its 6% of all rape cases result in conviction, which still emphasises my point, that from the point of complaint, 94% of men will not be prosecuted, despite BCS figures suggesting 23% of women have been raped (and also 3% of men sexually assaulted). Government statistics indicate that 75-85% of rapes are never reported (you'd assume these being spouse rapes). That is a disgrace.
SOA 2003 has clarified the law somewhat with regards to rape, but given how most cases invariably involve intoxication and how most women know the male involved, then you’re still dealing in a minefield with regards to the reasonable belief in consent.
You're a bit all over the place with this 6%. It was publicised by Harriet Harman and is a great example of lies, damn lies etc.
6% convicted of rape doesn't mean 94% were not prosecuted. Some were prosecuted and acquitted, others were convicted of offences other than rape.
The 6% makes no allowance for false allegations or those the complainant does not want to substantiate, false or not. What do you do with the latter?
If the issue at trial is consent, forensic evidence etc isn't going to help. Make an allowance for nervousness on both sides and the burden of proof and it is, as I said, perhaps surprising that 58% of rape trials end in a conviction for rape.
Rape cases are aggressively prosecuted. Nobody wants to make the decision to drop the case, it's easier to pass the buck. Eventually it all unravels and you've got another big factor in your 6%.
The SOA didn't clarify much at all. It made it easier to secure convictions by bringing a lot of (drunken often) sex potentially within the ambit of rape.
Meaningless stats aside, I'm confused by your stance on this. The system doesn't exist just to convict defendants. You accept how difficult these cases can be but think it's a disgrace there aren't more convictions? You get to the point where you won't get more of the guilty convicted without sacrificing some of the innocent. We're already at or possibly getting past that point.
-
Meaningless stats aside, I'm confused by your stance on this. The system doesn't exist just to convict defendants. You accept how difficult these cases can be but think it's a disgrace there aren't more convictions? You get to the point where you won't get more of the guilty convicted without sacrificing some of the innocent. We're already at or possibly getting past that point.
Whoah, enough of all this nuance shit. What shall I do with this noose?
-
Meaningless stats aside, I'm confused by your stance on this. The system doesn't exist just to convict defendants. You accept how difficult these cases can be but think it's a disgrace there aren't more convictions? You get to the point where you won't get more of the guilty convicted without sacrificing some of the innocent. We're already at or possibly getting past that point.
Whoah, enough of all this nuance shit. What shall I do with this noose?
Lemon, lube and a chair and you've got yourself a party right there.
-
Its the old should a man`s name be given out unless convicted story ???