Man charged for walking past a film star.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Honey126
She should be sentenced for defamation and false rape accusation, oh wait that won't happen because we're becoming a nazi - feminist society
You don't sentence someone for defamation, it isn't a crime.
Original post by Honey126
Yup, but it never will be. Laws are becoming more and more in favour of women. We're now seeing women able to assault men, and it's the men who get charged. Eventually, talking to a woman could be considered sexual assault, and women will simply be able to say a man raped her, and he'll get sentenced whether he's guilty or not. It's especially bad in America. Very worrying times
False rape accusations are a criminal offence, multiple people have been sent to jail for making false accusations.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
False rape accusations are a criminal offence, multiple people have been sent to jail for making false accusations.
Posted from TSR Mobile
False rape accusations are a criminal offence, multiple people have been sent to jail for making false accusations.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah for about 2 weeks
Original post by Honey126
Yeah for about 2 weeks
Where have you plucked that ridiculous idea from?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
You don't sentence someone for defamation, it isn't a crime.
False rape accusations are a criminal offence, multiple people have been sent to jail for making false accusations.
Posted from TSR Mobile
False rape accusations are a criminal offence, multiple people have been sent to jail for making false accusations.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yet there are police forces who have stated clearly they will not prosecute people who make false rape accusations.
Original post by AntiBabylonista
I hugely dislike the immature witch-hunt TSR virgin boys are now going on over feminism, it's not feminism's fault.
It is a terrible and damaging thing however, especially since that the arrest and decision to prosecute will still be held on local police databases and potentially revealed in an enhanced DBS check, even though the man was found not guilty.
It is a terrible and damaging thing however, especially since that the arrest and decision to prosecute will still be held on local police databases and potentially revealed in an enhanced DBS check, even though the man was found not guilty.
Shaming people for being virgins... smh
Souad Faress is the actress.
Original post by Underscore__
There are endless reports:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCUSmJurqrU - the man is in jail for 1 year, when they find out the woman lied, she gets 35 days
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/jul/26/ucsb-student-sentenced-fake-rape-report/
These are some of the few that actually got convicted. Most false rape accusers don't even get sentenced to anything
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Honey126
There are endless reports:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCUSmJurqrU - the man is in jail for 1 year, when they find out the woman lied, she gets 35 days
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/jul/26/ucsb-student-sentenced-fake-rape-report/
These are some of the few that actually got convicted. Most false rape accusers don't even get sentenced to anything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCUSmJurqrU - the man is in jail for 1 year, when they find out the woman lied, she gets 35 days
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/jul/26/ucsb-student-sentenced-fake-rape-report/
These are some of the few that actually got convicted. Most false rape accusers don't even get sentenced to anything
You've given two examples...
Jennifer Day went to jail for two and a half years for a false accusation. The maximum sentence is 3 years.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Did you actually read the article?
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Did you actually read the article?
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
It should never had gone to court in the first place, there simply wasn't enough evidence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Did you actually read the article?
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
You do know the Magna Carta has no legal authority anymore?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
"Does Magna Carter mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?"
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Did you actually read the article?
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
She accused him however;
It came as little surprise to Mr Pearson – though he was profoundly relieved and grateful – when the jury of nine women and three men unanimously rejected the woman’s story after deliberating for little more than 90 minutes.
As in he was accused, tried by a court of his peers as per the Magna Carta and released because no crime had been committed. This is how the justice system works. Of course he should have sued for libel and malicious prosecution as well as damages if he can prove he wakes up terrified or whatever the exact wording was (personally i think thats a load of BS, he had nothing to be scared of and was exonerated) but if its medically observable he has a claim for damages.
This is literally a nothing to see here case blown out of proportion. He was accused, had lawful trial, the jury was properly directed and gave the obviously correct verdict. That is how the judiciary functions.
The cps' role is to stop things like this happening they decide what cases they take to trial so there is something to see here a public body being at best extremely negligent
Original post by DiddyDec
It should never had gone to court in the first place, there simply wasn't enough evidence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I actually agree with this but justice was served in the end. The CPS couldnt afford to dismiss it less publicly given the political climate around such issues, it would feed the fire and may result in high level sackings for no reason as with Tim Wolfe. Its no different to Rotherham in that political considerations dictated behavior.
Original post by Underscore__
Well we are still judged by a court of our peers and this was the first place in which such a stipulation was set out so to say it has no legal authority is misleading. Admittedly good luck suing anyone by rule of the Magna Carta but that is because its principles have been updated in line with development of society as per the standard process of repealing older legislation. The fundamentals it established are still legally relevant in so far as how they influenced the next nearly 1000 years of law. Even ignoring that my point was they were tried in a means tested fashion that has endured much turmoil and history, he was assessed according to the legal structure of the UK and duly found not guilty.
Original post by joecphillips
The cps' role is to stop things like this happening they decide what cases they take to trial so there is something to see here a public body being at best extremely negligent
Yes no argument from me, there shouldnt have been a case to be heard at all but as i mentioned prior in this post its likely a political move as much as anything else. As i detailed this is why he has a right to sue her for the problems caused but i am not - unless medical evidence comes to light - willing to accept he has suffered 'nervous shock' or 'psychological trauma' from the event. The point about CPS negligence may well be true however i was referring to the misleading title of this post in so far as there is nothing to see because he was not found guilty however ridiculous the charge. I really dont think there is a great deal of harm if the CPS take everything to court as the justice system will still operate how it is supposed to and those taken to court may have a claim against the CPS itself.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
I actually agree with this but justice was served in the end. The CPS couldnt afford to dismiss it less publicly given the political climate around such issues, it would feed the fire and may result in high level sackings for no reason as with Tim Wolfe. Its no different to Rotherham in that political considerations dictated behavior.
Justice wasn't served, She lied to police and got away with it and he had his name dragged through the mud for a year.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
I actually agree with this but justice was served in the end. The CPS couldnt afford to dismiss it less publicly given the political climate around such issues, it would feed the fire and may result in high level sackings for no reason as with Tim Wolfe. Its no different to Rotherham in that political considerations dictated behavior.
Well we are still judged by a court of our peers and this was the first place in which such a stipulation was set out so to say it has no legal authority is misleading. Admittedly good luck suing anyone by rule of the Magna Carta but that is because its principles have been updated in line with development of society as per the standard process of repealing older legislation. The fundamentals it established are still legally relevant in so far as how they influenced the next nearly 1000 years of law. Even ignoring that my point was they were tried in a means tested fashion that has endured much turmoil and history, he was assessed according to the legal structure of the UK and duly found not guilty.
Yes no argument from me, there shouldnt have been a case to be heard at all but as i mentioned prior in this post its likely a political move as much as anything else. As i detailed this is why he has a right to sue her for the problems caused but i am not - unless medical evidence comes to light - willing to accept he has suffered 'nervous shock' or 'psychological trauma' from the event. The point about CPS negligence may well be true however i was referring to the misleading title of this post in so far as there is nothing to see because he was not found guilty however ridiculous the charge. I really dont think there is a great deal of harm if the CPS take everything to court as the justice system will still operate how it is supposed to and those taken to court may have a claim against the CPS itself.
Well we are still judged by a court of our peers and this was the first place in which such a stipulation was set out so to say it has no legal authority is misleading. Admittedly good luck suing anyone by rule of the Magna Carta but that is because its principles have been updated in line with development of society as per the standard process of repealing older legislation. The fundamentals it established are still legally relevant in so far as how they influenced the next nearly 1000 years of law. Even ignoring that my point was they were tried in a means tested fashion that has endured much turmoil and history, he was assessed according to the legal structure of the UK and duly found not guilty.
Yes no argument from me, there shouldnt have been a case to be heard at all but as i mentioned prior in this post its likely a political move as much as anything else. As i detailed this is why he has a right to sue her for the problems caused but i am not - unless medical evidence comes to light - willing to accept he has suffered 'nervous shock' or 'psychological trauma' from the event. The point about CPS negligence may well be true however i was referring to the misleading title of this post in so far as there is nothing to see because he was not found guilty however ridiculous the charge. I really dont think there is a great deal of harm if the CPS take everything to court as the justice system will still operate how it is supposed to and those taken to court may have a claim against the CPS itself.
Of course there is a great deal of harm what can be done if every single accusation is taken to court, people have their names released in relation to a crime and people believe no smoke without fire.
Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean people should just move on and ignore things questions should be asked to find out why, saying there is nothing to see as he was not found guilty minimises the affect that this could have on someone's life, how would you react if your life was turned upside down because of a clearly wrong charge of sex offences?
As the op what part of the title misleading? He was charged for walking past her there is proof all he did was walk past her
Should we let people make political moves like this and have such a big effect on a individuals life?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Well we are still judged by a court of our peers and this was the first place in which such a stipulation was set out so to say it has no legal authority is misleading. Admittedly good luck suing anyone by rule of the Magna Carta but that is because its principles have been updated in line with development of society as per the standard process of repealing older legislation. The fundamentals it established are still legally relevant in so far as how they influenced the next nearly 1000 years of law. Even ignoring that my point was they were tried in a means tested fashion that has endured much turmoil and history, he was assessed according to the legal structure of the UK and duly found not guilty.
Well we are still judged by a court of our peers and this was the first place in which such a stipulation was set out so to say it has no legal authority is misleading. Admittedly good luck suing anyone by rule of the Magna Carta but that is because its principles have been updated in line with development of society as per the standard process of repealing older legislation. The fundamentals it established are still legally relevant in so far as how they influenced the next nearly 1000 years of law. Even ignoring that my point was they were tried in a means tested fashion that has endured much turmoil and history, he was assessed according to the legal structure of the UK and duly found not guilty.
It's no remotely misleading to say it has no legal authority. Yes it contains principles and practices still observed today but so does the Basic Law of Oman, neither are relevant in a British court.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
It's no remotely misleading to say it has no legal authority. Yes it contains principles and practices still observed today but so does the Basic Law of Oman, neither are relevant in a British court.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
So despite it being a formative part of modern British law and therefore the direct source (another word for source in the legal field being authority if that source is common law or statute) of such principles and practices but not possessing legal authority?
Original post by joecphillips
Of course there is a great deal of harm what can be done if every single accusation is taken to court, people have their names released in relation to a crime and people believe no smoke without fire.
Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean people should just move on and ignore things questions should be asked to find out why, saying there is nothing to see as he was not found guilty minimises the affect that this could have on someone's life, how would you react if your life was turned upside down because of a clearly wrong charge of sex offences?
As the op what part of the title misleading? He was charged for walking past her there is proof all he did was walk past her
Should we let people make political moves like this and have such a big effect on a individuals life?
Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean people should just move on and ignore things questions should be asked to find out why, saying there is nothing to see as he was not found guilty minimises the affect that this could have on someone's life, how would you react if your life was turned upside down because of a clearly wrong charge of sex offences?
As the op what part of the title misleading? He was charged for walking past her there is proof all he did was walk past her
Should we let people make political moves like this and have such a big effect on a individuals life?
Well if having names revealed to a crime is such an issue (for certain crimes i do believe it is to be fair) then why are the CPS entitled to give names of suspected criminals to the press before the successful conviction? Whether its one person or everyone is it still not wrong in principle ie shouldn't occur at all. Unfortunately in this case he was accused of one of the unforgiveables - that is to say a crime which the accusation is the proof (such as with paedophilia) but that isnt the fault of the police or the justice who ruled on the case and they cant really be expected to be liable for the irrationality towards such crimes.
As for minimizing the effect on life i will provisionally support that on the basis of it being a societal problem in so far as ideally due to acquittal he should really have no ill effect on his life other than a bit of wasted time for court cases. This is theoretical of course and had the man possessed psychological reports or evidence of a significant effect then i would likely say he has lost a year and is entitled to damages but beyond that - again in theory - remains unaffected. The idea of his life being turned upside down is very subjective and again relies on how society reacts to that particular crime. I admit i didnt fully consider the ramifications as i generally browse TSR when sleep deprived and yes there are some questions raised but i also think they are quite obvious to answer. Why she did what she did is an impossible question about the psychology of nutters and why he was taken to court was a political move due to the culture around such crimes. My response may have been a bit blase but i did not see any particular distance in questions surrounding the issue.
That was my technicality radar going into overdrive, a charge is not the same as being charged. You go to court on a charge, you leave having been charged or acquitted.
No. The political effects should not be allowed but no amount of theory will change reality. Society at large has always been more important than any individual, particularly to those in power. For better or worse that simply is how it is.
Original post by DiddyDec
Justice wasn't served, She lied to police and got away with it and he had his name dragged through the mud for a year.
Well whilst i do agree she should have charges for malicious prosecution he has every right to bring a lawsuit against her and the CPS so there still is a chance for his justice if he decides to pursue it, and he was tried by proper legal principles and rightly found innocent. Whilst far from ideal the fundamental of justice is to allow the accused to clear themselves and in that respect it was properly exercised. He did not get justice from the CPS certainly but (a) what would you expect given their track record and (b) the police are there to collect evidence, the courts and the courts alone administer justice according to all principles in the UK so i would say fundamentally it was served as is most practically possible.
You could argue for the CPS or even the judiciary not to have any outside influence but that is utopian and therefore in practicality nonsense. The CPS prosecuted for political purposes as they are an instrument of the govt and in the service of society. The judiciary considers itself to be an instrument of justice concerned with society. Of course a discussion about the finer points of justice is a long winded tangential debate so simply put the courts arbitrate justice and did so here as good sense would dictate therefore it was served.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
So despite it being a formative part of modern British law and therefore the direct source (another word for source in the legal field being authority if that source is common law or statute) of such principles and practices but not possessing legal authority?
Sorry what exactly is your question? The Magna Carta is a starting point for legislation essentially but it carries no weight anymore, there really is nothing up for debate on that subject
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
Sorry what exactly is your question? The Magna Carta is a starting point for legislation essentially but it carries no weight anymore, there really is nothing up for debate on that subject
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
No it does not apply any more but it carries enough weight to (a) be an entire module on my public law course and (b) IS a legal authority which is my point. It is an entrenched legislation built on by the doctrine of implied repeal and is therefore referred to as part of purposive arguments referring to the legislation which superseded it thus has legal authority. I dont know if I am writing this poorly or if you arent understanding but it objectively is a legal authority
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What was the last film you watched Mk. III
- Name a film without the letter 'E' in the title
- What films were in the cinema when you were born?
- Make it More Sauce-ey !!
- Accomodation Birmingham
- sad movie recommendations coz i need to cry
- Cardiff University Accomadation
- Do you go to the same cinema or go to different ones to watch movies?
- Make it More Crime-ey !!
- Do you have a comfort film?
- Cheap Things to do in Liverpool
- accommodation in the city centre or campus
- Upcoming Films Trailer thread
- goldies poll star wars best film (3 votes)
- HELP im horrible at module 2 OCR chemistry
- What is your favourite film genre and why?
- Make it More River-ey !!
- Make it More Soup-ey !!
- Sober during freshers
- goldies poll star wars v star trek
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
which unis will accept BBB for economicsLast reply 3 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 4 minutes ago
shouldn't more and more young people be candidates in local elections now? becauseLast reply 4 minutes ago
Bank of America Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official: University of Aberdeen A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 5 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 7 minutes ago
TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities - Tenth SessionLast reply 9 minutes ago
AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 (Higher Tier triple) 8463/1H - 22nd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 9 minutes ago
The Official Funding questions/moans/possible joy ThreadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 8 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 8 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?