Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The woman who sued Bush for rape watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    to make rape allegations?
    it was perfectly clear she meant paying the newspapers to keep the story quiet...read her post again
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I think some people are letting their hatred for Bush get in the way of making a reasonable comment - no matter what you think of him politically, it would be unfair to bring to attention claims that the media think are ludicrous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I think some people are letting their hatred for Bush get in the way of making a reasonable comment - no matter what you think of him politically, it would be unfair to bring to attention claims that the media think are ludicrous.
    Are you saying therefore that the media has no right to publicise an allegation untill it is proven to be true?

    However, ludicrous a claim is there is every right for the media to publiscise it and if it is untrue then it will be no problem for him to prove his innocence
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    it was perfectly clear she meant paying the newspapers to keep the story quiet...read her post again
    its difficult to know what to think, when theres so much rubbish in front of my eyes.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Are you saying therefore that the media has no right to publicise an allegation untill it is proven to be true?

    However, ludicrous a claim is there is every right for the media to publiscise it and if it is untrue then it will be no problem for him to prove his innocence
    But it is at the discretion of the media what to print so if they saw nothing substantial in her claims it's not surprising nothing was printed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    the unsubstantiated existence of WMDs the unsubstantiated existence of a link between Al'Quaeda and Sadamn - why was it ok to publish and act on these then???


    Sorry Im not trying to go off topic its just that surely Bush shouldnt benefit from being Innocent untill Proven Guilty when he has endorsed no such action during his presidency (Guantanamo Bay!!)
    I thought the presumption of innocence was an inalienable human right...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    its difficult to know what to think, when theres so much rubbish in front of my eyes.
    here we go again!
    an insulting thread as you dont have anything to add to my point :rolleyes:
    kinda getting used to it
    no wonder hardly anyone likes you, or wait does our hate drive you? hmm :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    I thought the presumption of innocence was an inalienable human right...
    If it is a basic human right then why doesnt Bush afford it to everyone he believes he is fighting in his war on terrrorism????

    My argument is not that the story should have been publiscised but that Bush does not deserve a greater level of 'supposed innocence' than anyone else
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    My argument is not that the story should have been publiscised but that Bush does not deserve a greater level of 'supposed innocence' than anyone else
    but he still deserves the same level, which is not being applied here with talk of bribery, corruption and media pay-offs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but he still deserves the same level, which is not being applied here with talk of bribery, corruption and media pay-offs.
    We are not the media

    The thread is about the lack of press coverage that this story has been given and whether it should have been given greater exposure...my argument is that any figure in the public eye can be berated in the media and can also be accused of all kinds of rubbish, and whilst this is not necessaryily a good thing there is no reason why Bush should be able to escape this merely because of his position of power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    since were talking about the media...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0406181018.asp
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    We are not the media

    The thread is about the lack of press coverage that this story has been given and whether it should have been given greater exposure...my argument is that any figure in the public eye can be berated in the media and can also be accused of all kinds of rubbish, and whilst this is not necessaryily a good thing there is no reason why Bush should be able to escape this merely because of his position of power.
    the thread is about the value of the accusation. the media could have reported on it but they chose not to. they, as LH and I believe, didnt find any justification or reason for reporting on such a claim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    since were talking about the media...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0406181018.asp
    Am I the only one who gets the impression the American media doesn't like the BBC for some reason? They seem to constantly try and find ways to discredit it for not taking the same over-dramatised, rather movie-like attitude to news reporting, instead just reporting the news and not going for "ratings".

    They always have to over-dramatise everything - even that article itself, which doesn't even contain any "news", comes across as such, announcing loudly "NOT MENTIONED ON THE BBC-" like it's some huge crime. The part on Regan is even worse, and effectively comes down to the BBC giving a realistic outline of his life rather than trying to pretend he was perfect. Most of it is taken terribly out of context, such as accusing the BBC of "reminding us that he was a "B movie actor"", when the BBC article actually says he described HIMSELF as one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Am I the only one who gets the impression the American media doesn't like the BBC for some reason?
    i dont think they do either. but bearing in mind that reason, im not surprised.

    They seem to constantly try and find ways to discredit it for not taking the same over-dramatised, rather movie-like attitude to news reporting,
    if youve read the above, i dont think you can claim that.

    They always have to over-dramatise everything - even that article itself, which doesn't even contain any "news", comes across as such, announcing loudly "NOT MENTIONED ON THE BBC-" like it's some huge crime.
    the article was over-dramatised? hardly. it literally made observation of alot fact. if you also read the BBC's statement of intentions, it is indeed a crime, for, as the author points out, they are passing themselves us as fair and unbiased.

    The part on Regan is even worse, and effectively comes down to the BBC giving a realistic outline of his life rather than trying to pretend he was perfect.
    no. an obiturary is meant to provide an overview of someones life in as much objectivity as possible. every other media organisation in the world managed to do that. if you think cold war you think Reagan. the author draws attention to the fact that, while his less than succesful points may be highlighted, to not mention that in the context of his wider victories and overwhelming strengths is laughable.

    Most of it is taken terribly out of context, such as accusing the BBC of "reminding us that he was a "B movie actor"", when the BBC article actually says he described HIMSELF as one.
    whats the difference?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i dont think they do either. but bearing in mind that reason, im not surprised.

    if youve read the above, i dont think you can claim that.

    the article was over-dramatised? hardly. it literally made observation of alot fact. if you also read the BBC's statement of intentions, it is indeed a crime, for, as the author points out, they are passing themselves us as fair and unbiased.

    no. an obiturary is meant to provide an overview of someones life in as much objectivity as possible. every other media organisation in the world managed to do that. if you think cold war you think Reagan. the author draws attention to the fact that, while his less than succesful points may be highlighted, to not mention that in the context of his wider victories and overwhelming strengths is laughable.

    whats the difference?
    I dunno. The whole article just seems to have a very "WOW! STOP THE PRESS! DON'T TOUCH THAT DIAL!" attention-grabbing "please read me" feel to it I often get from the American media. It's as if making an exciting story is more important than the story itself - and all this one really is is a dig at the BBC.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    I dunno. The whole article just seems to have a very "WOW! STOP THE PRESS! DON'T TOUCH THAT DIAL!" attention-grabbing "please read me" feel to it I often get from the American media.
    could you give me some examples, because i didnt get that impression. the author is a middle east correspondent in London and New York who writes for a political periodical. i wouldnt suggest this is an element of mainstream US media. the articles sole purpose was to establish and assess the nature and standard of the BBCs news delivery over the last few years. it is relevant in understanding why US policy is being undermined not just in Britain but around the globe.

    It's as if making an exciting story is more important than the story itself - and all this one really is is a dig at the BBC.
    a 'dig' is when you use language that vastly over emphasises the context and reality of a situation. a dig is when you fabricate fact. a dig is when you make character assassinations in a piece of poltical analysis. to my knowledge this article does none of the above. it doesnt explain why or what for, just the barebones, the disturbing truths.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Im no fan of Dubyas but I think its pretty much accepted that he hasnt had a drink for like thirty years or something
    no matter how long an alcoholic goes without a drink they are never fully recovered. If they were they would be able to have just the odd one or two drinks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hmm, anyone spot a flaw?
    hmm i missed this post!!
    funny how you missed the middle part of my thread, and yes go on say it was rubbish so it wasnt worth posting!
    hmmm :rolleyes:
    and if you continued to read my other posts ....
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, a few points about this thread:

    1) To refuse to believe a rape allegation on the basis that you imagine it was made by a crack-junkie whore is just awful. This perpetuates the view that all rape victims are asking for it.

    2) The woman asked for $50 million in damages because George Bush can afford it. It's all relative to the amount of impact the damages would make on the accused person's life - charging him a few grand for raping someone would just give him licence to do it again.

    3) George Bush is the most powerful man in the world, so I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect a cover-up. It's probably more likely that the newspapers were scared of what would happen to them if they reported claims which then turned out to be false. Perhaps they didn't believe the claims were false, but Bush is unlikely to be found guilty whatever the truth is.

    4) If these allegations came out, it would be difficult for Bush to remain in office even if they were disproved. This kind of thing tends to stick, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's people were getting a bit nervous about the whole thing.

    5) Perhaps the woman was killed, but I think it's more likely she killed herself. One of two situations could have occurred: a) she makes a false accusation for money, but the stress of lying and perhaps being threatened by Bush's heavies is too much for her, or b) she's been raped by the president, but no-one believes her. They all have the attitude expressed on this forum - she's in it for the money being, as she supposedly is, a crack-addict prostitute. No wonder she put a gun to her head.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    Ok, a few points about this thread:

    1) To refuse to believe a rape allegation on the basis that you imagine it was made by a crack-junkie whore is just awful. This perpetuates the view that all rape victims are asking for it.

    2) The woman asked for $50 million in damages because George Bush can afford it. It's all relative to the amount of impact the damages would make on the accused person's life - charging him a few grand for raping someone would just give him licence to do it again.

    3) George Bush is the most powerful man in the world, so I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect a cover-up. It's probably more likely that the newspapers were scared of what would happen to them if they reported claims which then turned out to be false. Perhaps they didn't believe the claims were false, but Bush is unlikely to be found guilty whatever the truth is.

    4) If these allegations came out, it would be difficult for Bush to remain in office even if they were disproved. This kind of thing tends to stick, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's people were getting a bit nervous about the whole thing.

    5) Perhaps the woman was killed, but I think it's more likely she killed herself. One of two situations could have occurred: a) she makes a false accusation for money, but the stress of lying and perhaps being threatened by Bush's heavies is too much for her, or b) she's been raped by the president, but no-one believes her. They all have the attitude expressed on this forum - she's in it for the money being, as she supposedly is, a crack-addict prostitute. No wonder she put a gun to her head.
    nice post
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.