Kevin Spacey's career is going to ruined by an unsubstantiated 30 year old accusation.
That seems... unfair.
That seems... unfair.
He has (allegedly) been doing that sort of thing for a number of years.
That's not internet allegedly - that's from someone that worked for him (and often lived in the same house) for around a decade.
That's not internet allegedly - that's from someone that worked for him (and often lived in the same house) for around a decade.
Yeah it sounds like he's kind of notorious amongst those circles. Which I really don't understand, I mean I can understand Weinstein getting away with it for so long because he could make or break careers but someone like Spacey? It seems to have been an open secret that he's a wrongun but people kept on hiring him for acting jobs.
Yeah, but he’s gay so that’s ok.
Seriously though, his explanation yesterday is an abhorrent way to excuse his behaviour and I can imagine lots of gay men being very upset with it.
Seriously though, his explanation yesterday is an abhorrent way to excuse his behaviour and I can imagine lots of gay men being very upset with it.
Ah right. So it's similar to Weinstein in that there's probably a queue of (alleged) victims waiting to point the finger. Still... innocent until proven guilty seems to have largely flown the coop on this one.
But he's admitted it.
markg wrote:
But he's admitted it.
Who, Spacey or Weinstein?
DavPaz wrote:
markg wrote:
But he's admitted it.
Who, Spacey or Weinstein?
Both, Spacey claimed 30 year amnesia, then came out as gay.
Spacey, but my mistake he hasn't admitted it exactly but rather not denied it and apologised if it did happen.
It's basically a nasty, horrible situation across the board. On a smaller scale, the guy who started Honest Trailers on Youtube has been Weinstein-ed as well with a large number of accusations flying in.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the accusations are false, but it's only a matter of time before there are a few false ones flying about. Remember John Leslie?
If I were a Hollywood type, I would currently be avoiding being alone with anybody. I mean, we don't even go into Student bedrooms alone!
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the accusations are false, but it's only a matter of time before there are a few false ones flying about. Remember John Leslie?
If I were a Hollywood type, I would currently be avoiding being alone with anybody. I mean, we don't even go into Student bedrooms alone!
Hey, who remembers Spacey's storyline from LA Confidential? Yikes.
DavPaz wrote:
It's basically a nasty, horrible situation across the board. On a smaller scale, the guy who started Honest Trailers on Youtube has been Weinstein-ed as well with a large number of accusations flying in.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the accusations are false, but it's only a matter of time before there are a few false ones flying about. Remember John Leslie?
If I were a Hollywood type, I would currently be avoiding being alone with anybody. I mean, we don't even go into Student bedrooms alone!
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the accusations are false, but it's only a matter of time before there are a few false ones flying about. Remember John Leslie?
If I were a Hollywood type, I would currently be avoiding being alone with anybody. I mean, we don't even go into Student bedrooms alone!
This sort of behaviour has been brushed under the carpet for years though, the abuse that comes with the casting couch mentality has been the norm since the start of film making.
Even those who have never done anything would have known about it and no matter how rich and powerful they become very few have ever spoken out until recently.
Of course none of this makes it ok for false accusations but maybe this will make the industry police themselves to avoid situations were this can ever happen, which I see as a good thing.
People who would never dream of doing it are protecting themselves from what is now a career ending situation, whist those predators still out there will not be able to be in a position where they can abuse people.
asfish wrote:
People who would never dream of doing it are protecting themselves from what is now a career ending situation, whist those predators still out there will not be able to be in a position where they can abuse people.
Good. And I hope all of the scumbags that have done horrible things get what they deserve.
Funny how all of this might have started with Saville.
DavPaz wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the accusations are false, but it's only a matter of time before there are a few false ones flying about. Remember John Leslie?
You’ve only got to look at the number of Operation Yewtree prosecutions/charges that failed. Rolf Harris might have been found guilty of some charges but he was also found innocent of others. That might be a bad example cause now he’s a bad man but let’s be careful because there must have been some untruths in a fair few of the accusations made against those arrested.
The problem is that the number of false accusations << the number of people who don't speak up about an actual incident.
So yeah, there might be some people jumping on a band wagon, but this whole mentality is part of the reason why so many people don't speak up in the first place.
So yeah, there might be some people jumping on a band wagon, but this whole mentality is part of the reason why so many people don't speak up in the first place.
Like I said, fucked up.
Wouldn't it be great if people weren't horrible to each other?
Wouldn't it be great if people weren't horrible to each other?
I believe victims. It takes a lot of courage to speak out about abuse, and the amount of negative reaction it gets and strain it puts on you and your family makes fabricating stories almost not worth your time. Especially if the perpetrator is famous and well liked.
Lonewolves wrote:
I believe victims. It takes a lot of courage to speak out about abuse, and the amount of negative reaction it gets and strain it puts on you and your family makes fabricating stories almost not worth your time. Especially if the perpetrator is famous and well liked.
You're right of course.
I wonder how long it's going to connect this to Bryan Singer.
Edit: and there was the case of Brad Renfro, plus Ian McKellen was photographed at Singer's parties.
Edit: and there was the case of Brad Renfro, plus Ian McKellen was photographed at Singer's parties.
Lonewolves wrote:
I believe victims. It takes a lot of courage to speak out about abuse, and the amount of negative reaction it gets and strain it puts on you and your family makes fabricating stories almost not worth your time. Especially if the perpetrator is famous and well liked.
Whilst I agree with all of that, that it must take extraordinary courage for people to speak out about abuse they have suffered, none of that actually applies if someone is a fantasist making a false accusation. I don't understand what would motivate people to make such false accusations but neither do I understand what motivates people to abuse others in the way that they have in many of these cases. So for me to presume either way would be idiotic.
It has to be for a court to decide really and to sometimes get wrong and sometimes get right in the way that courts do.
markg wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
I believe victims. It takes a lot of courage to speak out about abuse, and the amount of negative reaction it gets and strain it puts on you and your family makes fabricating stories almost not worth your time. Especially if the perpetrator is famous and well liked.
Whilst I agree with all of that, that it must take extraordinary courage for people to speak out about abuse they have suffered, none of that actually applies if someone is a fantasist making a false accusation. I don't understand what would motivate people to make such false accusations but neither do I understand what motivates people to abuse others in the way that they have in many of these cases. So for me to presume either way would be idiotic.
It has to be for a court to decide really and to sometimes get wrong and sometimes get right in the way that courts do.
I mean, I agree on the whole, but often there is very little actual evidence that something happened and it's very much one person's word against another's. Plus you have all the other crap that gets flung at people in these situations. So it's very hard to say let's stick with what we have at the moment...
Lonewolves wrote:
I believe victims. It takes a lot of courage to speak out about abuse, and the amount of negative reaction it gets and strain it puts on you and your family makes fabricating stories almost not worth your time. Especially if the perpetrator is famous and well liked.
I broadly agree, but there's plenty of evidence that people have fabricated entire events.
People be odd.
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
I believe victims. It takes a lot of courage to speak out about abuse, and the amount of negative reaction it gets and strain it puts on you and your family makes fabricating stories almost not worth your time. Especially if the perpetrator is famous and well liked.
I broadly agree, but there's plenty of evidence that people have fabricated entire events.
People be odd.
Evidence shows that for every fabricated story there are many more abuses that happen that never come to light. So I will believe victims until proven otherwise, and even sometimes beyond as it is so difficult to actually prove it has happened in a lot of cases.
People easily forget that the victims of abuse have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making accusations like this. And the cases where someone is making something up for their moment in the spotlight is dwarfed by instances where it gets minimised into nothingness.
The thing that really gets me, is the indignation of some men, like "Well I can't risk going into a room on my own with a woman in case she makes something up about me, or gets offended if I touch her arm!" Women, for all time, have been second guessing every lone interaction with the vast majority of men they encounter. This whole "can I trust this person" is not new to us, and it is only your privilege up until this point in time - now that some 'typically' male behaviour is being questioned - that brings those trust issues to the front and centre of your world. I'm not saying all men a rapists or abusers, or that men can't imagine what it's like but a lot of men do fail to see the extent of the automatic, birthright privilege that comes from being a man and that does stop them believing things could be any other way.
Ask your wives if they've ever been in a situation with a man that made them nervous. Then ask yourself if you've ever genuinely been concerned a woman might take it upon herself to make up a sexual assault after being alone in a room with you, and then think about how closely that fear is tied specifically to large scale stories of sexual abuse by men in power in the media. Women don't need to read about a serial rapist/groper/flasher on the loose to before they worry about being assaulted or cat-called or otherwise reduced to a sex object, it's a default state for many, in many situations.
A lot of the attitudes that need to change aren't intentionally hurtful or sexist, it's stuff that is deeply ingrained within society as a whole - men and women, straight or otherwise. That person engaged in casual encounters, they were dressed suggestively, they didn't speak out soon enough, they went out alone at night, they knew his reputation when they went in the room with him, they should have tried to avoid the situation, they shouldn't have been so drunk.
I know of a police officer who genuinely thought women who refuse to give evidence or press charges after reporting a sexual assault should be charged with wasting police time. Where do you even begin with changing that kind of institutionalised attitude.
The thing that really gets me, is the indignation of some men, like "Well I can't risk going into a room on my own with a woman in case she makes something up about me, or gets offended if I touch her arm!" Women, for all time, have been second guessing every lone interaction with the vast majority of men they encounter. This whole "can I trust this person" is not new to us, and it is only your privilege up until this point in time - now that some 'typically' male behaviour is being questioned - that brings those trust issues to the front and centre of your world. I'm not saying all men a rapists or abusers, or that men can't imagine what it's like but a lot of men do fail to see the extent of the automatic, birthright privilege that comes from being a man and that does stop them believing things could be any other way.
Ask your wives if they've ever been in a situation with a man that made them nervous. Then ask yourself if you've ever genuinely been concerned a woman might take it upon herself to make up a sexual assault after being alone in a room with you, and then think about how closely that fear is tied specifically to large scale stories of sexual abuse by men in power in the media. Women don't need to read about a serial rapist/groper/flasher on the loose to before they worry about being assaulted or cat-called or otherwise reduced to a sex object, it's a default state for many, in many situations.
A lot of the attitudes that need to change aren't intentionally hurtful or sexist, it's stuff that is deeply ingrained within society as a whole - men and women, straight or otherwise. That person engaged in casual encounters, they were dressed suggestively, they didn't speak out soon enough, they went out alone at night, they knew his reputation when they went in the room with him, they should have tried to avoid the situation, they shouldn't have been so drunk.
I know of a police officer who genuinely thought women who refuse to give evidence or press charges after reporting a sexual assault should be charged with wasting police time. Where do you even begin with changing that kind of institutionalised attitude.
Agree with all of that, Flis, and appreciate being able to read it from someone who has put it so well.
Well said Flis. Well said. Humbling
Tinseltown Turmoil would be a great name for a band.
Pundabaya wrote:
Tinseltown Turmoil would be a great name for a band.
Or wrestler.
Wrestling show, yes! Wrestler? Nah.
Quote:
"Well I can't risk going into a room on my own with a woman in case she makes something up about me, or gets offended if I touch her arm!"
I was speaking to a guy at work last week about all of this Hollywood stuff, he was just like this, complaining about having to watch out etc when in 1-1 meetings with women at work
He told me he had a meeting last month and thought that the nail colour of the women he was speaking too was something his wife would like, he couldn't bring himself to ask her what it was in case she took offence or thought he was trying it on.
It has never crossed my mind to even think like that,
I've no interest in anyone other than my wife that way and wouldn't dream of trying it on or whatever with a woman I was having a 1-1 meeting with.
Good point on woman 2nd guessing, I never gave that any thought before, mostly as I never had any thought of being a pest with women, that said always worth thinking about that in the future as I would hate for any women to think I was a threat due to me not thinking before I spoke or acted etc
Well said, Flis.
flis wrote:
People easily forget that the victims of abuse have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making accusations like this. And the cases where someone is making something up for their moment in the spotlight is dwarfed by instances where it gets minimised into nothingness.
The thing that really gets me, is the indignation of some men, like "Well I can't risk going into a room on my own with a woman in case she makes something up about me, or gets offended if I touch her arm!" Women, for all time, have been second guessing every lone interaction with the vast majority of men they encounter. This whole "can I trust this person" is not new to us, and it is only your privilege up until this point in time - now that some 'typically' male behaviour is being questioned - that brings those trust issues to the front and centre of your world. I'm not saying all men a rapists or abusers, or that men can't imagine what it's like but a lot of men do fail to see the extent of the automatic, birthright privilege that comes from being a man and that does stop them believing things could be any other way.
Ask your wives if they've ever been in a situation with a man that made them nervous. Then ask yourself if you've ever genuinely been concerned a woman might take it upon herself to make up a sexual assault after being alone in a room with you, and then think about how closely that fear is tied specifically to large scale stories of sexual abuse by men in power in the media. Women don't need to read about a serial rapist/groper/flasher on the loose to before they worry about being assaulted or cat-called or otherwise reduced to a sex object, it's a default state for many, in many situations.
A lot of the attitudes that need to change aren't intentionally hurtful or sexist, it's stuff that is deeply ingrained within society as a whole - men and women, straight or otherwise. That person engaged in casual encounters, they were dressed suggestively, they didn't speak out soon enough, they went out alone at night, they knew his reputation when they went in the room with him, they should have tried to avoid the situation, they shouldn't have been so drunk.
I know of a police officer who genuinely thought women who refuse to give evidence or press charges after reporting a sexual assault should be charged with wasting police time. Where do you even begin with changing that kind of institutionalised attitude.
The thing that really gets me, is the indignation of some men, like "Well I can't risk going into a room on my own with a woman in case she makes something up about me, or gets offended if I touch her arm!" Women, for all time, have been second guessing every lone interaction with the vast majority of men they encounter. This whole "can I trust this person" is not new to us, and it is only your privilege up until this point in time - now that some 'typically' male behaviour is being questioned - that brings those trust issues to the front and centre of your world. I'm not saying all men a rapists or abusers, or that men can't imagine what it's like but a lot of men do fail to see the extent of the automatic, birthright privilege that comes from being a man and that does stop them believing things could be any other way.
Ask your wives if they've ever been in a situation with a man that made them nervous. Then ask yourself if you've ever genuinely been concerned a woman might take it upon herself to make up a sexual assault after being alone in a room with you, and then think about how closely that fear is tied specifically to large scale stories of sexual abuse by men in power in the media. Women don't need to read about a serial rapist/groper/flasher on the loose to before they worry about being assaulted or cat-called or otherwise reduced to a sex object, it's a default state for many, in many situations.
A lot of the attitudes that need to change aren't intentionally hurtful or sexist, it's stuff that is deeply ingrained within society as a whole - men and women, straight or otherwise. That person engaged in casual encounters, they were dressed suggestively, they didn't speak out soon enough, they went out alone at night, they knew his reputation when they went in the room with him, they should have tried to avoid the situation, they shouldn't have been so drunk.
I know of a police officer who genuinely thought women who refuse to give evidence or press charges after reporting a sexual assault should be charged with wasting police time. Where do you even begin with changing that kind of institutionalised attitude.
Thank you for putting it so much better than I could, mainly because you can draw on your experiences to explain it better.
I'm not sure about what Corey Feldman is doing (for those that don't know, he says he has a list of names of people that abused him and other young actors, but he'll only release them as part of a documentary he needs $10,000,000 to create.
Meanwhile, at least one of the people on his list is "still powerful in Hollywood".
Meanwhile, at least one of the people on his list is "still powerful in Hollywood".
Yeah that's kind of sad all round.
Grim... wrote:
I'm not sure about what Corey Feldman is doing (for those that don't know, he says he has a list of names of people that abused him and other young actors, but he'll only release them as part of a documentary he needs $10,000,000 to create.
Meanwhile, at least one of the people on his list is "still powerful in Hollywood".
Meanwhile, at least one of the people on his list is "still powerful in Hollywood".
Oh, is that what he’s said? I wasn’t aware of the bit where he said he needed money to release the name. That’s not going to end well for anyone. If anyone else knows who the would-be accused is and has evidence or experience of the same from that person you can only hope that they go to the police and report this in the right way.
That seems…unnecessary.
It seems greedy. If he was desperate to tell his story, he wouldn't be asking for £10m. And isn't he just feeding the machine that hurt him?
Maybe. Or maybe he wants to tell his story and retire from the cuisines that hurt him. It’s hard to know. I don’t think it’s tge right thing to do, but it’s not my life that’s been ruined.
Mimi wrote:
Maybe. Or maybe he wants to tell his story and retire from the cuisines that hurt him.
One terrible evening, the croque monsieur leaned in and whispered 'voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir?', its glistening ham dripping with sweaty expectation.
Mimi wrote:
:luv:
Agree with all of that, Flis, and appreciate being able to read it from someone who has put it so well.
Agree with all of that, Flis, and appreciate being able to read it from someone who has put it so well.
DavPaz wrote:
Kevin Spacey's career is going to ruined by an unsubstantiated 30 year old accusation.
That seems... unfair.
That seems... unfair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41829484
Lot more people making statements\complaints
Well then.
I keep writing a reply to this thread (in addition to my agreement with flis) and deleting it... stupid jumbled mess of thoughts. Bear with me.
One of the things that stopped me from reporting my main 'attacker' for so long was the fear that I would destroy his life (even though he destroyed mine). And when I finally reported him - albeit to a social worker rather than more 'formal' channels - he was ostracised from family and friends, a path that eventually led him to take his own life.
The two events may not be directly connected, and in my head I know that there was a lot of things that happened between those two things, but I will never not see that connection; something I will have to live with for the rest of my life.
The victims that have come forward over the past few weeks or so will have potentially spent a long, long time analysing the consequences of coming forward. They will be dealing with HUGE, complicated feelings of shame, fear, confusion etc on top of the obvious inconvenience of being in the spotlight and having to share this not just with e.g. a police officer but the whole world all at once...
I believe them. I believe them and I cry for them. And I'd rather believe 100 fake stories if it means supporting just one legit victim than stand around proselytising cynicism and doubt, which ultimately makes genuine sufferers stay quiet.
(I hope that makes sense... I have had a shit day and a laaaaarge glass of wine so feeling fragile; be gentle
)
One of the things that stopped me from reporting my main 'attacker' for so long was the fear that I would destroy his life (even though he destroyed mine). And when I finally reported him - albeit to a social worker rather than more 'formal' channels - he was ostracised from family and friends, a path that eventually led him to take his own life.
The two events may not be directly connected, and in my head I know that there was a lot of things that happened between those two things, but I will never not see that connection; something I will have to live with for the rest of my life.
The victims that have come forward over the past few weeks or so will have potentially spent a long, long time analysing the consequences of coming forward. They will be dealing with HUGE, complicated feelings of shame, fear, confusion etc on top of the obvious inconvenience of being in the spotlight and having to share this not just with e.g. a police officer but the whole world all at once...
I believe them. I believe them and I cry for them. And I'd rather believe 100 fake stories if it means supporting just one legit victim than stand around proselytising cynicism and doubt, which ultimately makes genuine sufferers stay quiet.
(I hope that makes sense... I have had a shit day and a laaaaarge glass of wine so feeling fragile; be gentle
) Even if those 100 people who were falsely accused killed themselves because of the hounding they unfairly received?
I mean I get what you're saying, and false reports are very rare indeed, but they do happen.
I mean I get what you're saying, and false reports are very rare indeed, but they do happen.
You get what I'm saying, so you're twisting my words to come up with an unlikely ending because...?
I read your response last night and was genuinely stumped as to how to respond. Felt like a kick in the stomach.
Believing a victim when they come forward doesn't have some pre-requisite perp-lynch mode attached; saying I believe you isn't a statement of intent towards the attacker. So - if your bizarre and unlikely scenario were to play out - I would be really fucking sad for the 100 who decided to kill themselves after being falsely accused, and would of course feel like shit (as I do when anyone dies let alone by suicide), but I wouldn't accept responsibility or feel guilty purely because I believed the alleged victim. Which I think is what you're asking? Who knows.
I read your response last night and was genuinely stumped as to how to respond. Felt like a kick in the stomach.
Believing a victim when they come forward doesn't have some pre-requisite perp-lynch mode attached; saying I believe you isn't a statement of intent towards the attacker. So - if your bizarre and unlikely scenario were to play out - I would be really fucking sad for the 100 who decided to kill themselves after being falsely accused, and would of course feel like shit (as I do when anyone dies let alone by suicide), but I wouldn't accept responsibility or feel guilty purely because I believed the alleged victim. Which I think is what you're asking? Who knows.
Pundy is saying that there are false reports of assaults (and every other type of crime, I've no doubt), and that they can probably end badly for the person accused.
Saying you believe the victim automatically because they're the victim (as opposed to being willing to believe the victim, which I guess you probably meant) very much is a statement of intent against the person(s) they're reporting - until proven otherwise, that person is guilty of the crime as reported.
Saying you believe the victim automatically because they're the victim (as opposed to being willing to believe the victim, which I guess you probably meant) very much is a statement of intent against the person(s) they're reporting - until proven otherwise, that person is guilty of the crime as reported.
I generally believe the accuser, but that has to be balanced with everyone having a right to defend themselves against accusations of a crime. If it's talk about legal action, there needs to be a fair trial for someone to be convicted.
The same burdens for a conviction aren't required for your own perception of a situation.
This does get a little muddied with trial by the court of public opinion, half-admissions, and potentially unreliable witnesses (even with honourable intentions).
The same burdens for a conviction aren't required for your own perception of a situation.
This does get a little muddied with trial by the court of public opinion, half-admissions, and potentially unreliable witnesses (even with honourable intentions).
I think the problem is partly in that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ has two ends that run parellel and yet can’t really both exist together.
So, the alleged attacker is innocent until proven guilty. Ok. We have to believe he is innocent until such time as he is proven guilty.
But also the alleged victim. We need to believe that they are also innocent (of potentially bringing about false accusations) unless proven guilty of doing so.
So, can we believe that the alleged perpatrator is innocent if we also believe the alleged victim is? We can believe the victims because the criminal law system is set up to believe the alleged perpatrator. Where things get skewed is when the media tell, or hint, spin, etc at which side to believe.
And of course, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the alleged victim was lying. It does not mean that the alleged attacker was telling the truth. It’s a lack of evidence, so the system is weighted towards the burden of proof. That’s true in all crimes, but especially rape and sexual assault, as they are crimes so difficult to come forward and report, evidence is hard to find, collect, substantiate. Fear, shame... so many things stop victims coming forwards, and when they do they have everything to lose, as a not guilty verdict can, sometimes, be read as guilt on the part of the accuser, of falsely reporting, of exaggerating, of ‘making a fuss’.
So, as the system believes in innocence until guilt is proven, I think we can legitimately believe the victims, and that’s without even all of the absolute courage, risk and strength that a victim has to find, with everything to lose, when naming an attacker in a legal system so weighted against guilty convictions.
So, the alleged attacker is innocent until proven guilty. Ok. We have to believe he is innocent until such time as he is proven guilty.
But also the alleged victim. We need to believe that they are also innocent (of potentially bringing about false accusations) unless proven guilty of doing so.
So, can we believe that the alleged perpatrator is innocent if we also believe the alleged victim is? We can believe the victims because the criminal law system is set up to believe the alleged perpatrator. Where things get skewed is when the media tell, or hint, spin, etc at which side to believe.
And of course, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the alleged victim was lying. It does not mean that the alleged attacker was telling the truth. It’s a lack of evidence, so the system is weighted towards the burden of proof. That’s true in all crimes, but especially rape and sexual assault, as they are crimes so difficult to come forward and report, evidence is hard to find, collect, substantiate. Fear, shame... so many things stop victims coming forwards, and when they do they have everything to lose, as a not guilty verdict can, sometimes, be read as guilt on the part of the accuser, of falsely reporting, of exaggerating, of ‘making a fuss’.
So, as the system believes in innocence until guilt is proven, I think we can legitimately believe the victims, and that’s without even all of the absolute courage, risk and strength that a victim has to find, with everything to lose, when naming an attacker in a legal system so weighted against guilty convictions.
Grim... wrote:
Pundy is saying that there are false reports of assaults (and every other type of crime, I've no doubt), and that they can probably end badly for the person accused.
Saying you believe the victim automatically because they're the victim (as opposed to being willing to believe the victim, which I guess you probably meant) very much is a statement of intent against the person(s) they're reporting - until proven otherwise, that person is guilty of the crime as reported.
Saying you believe the victim automatically because they're the victim (as opposed to being willing to believe the victim, which I guess you probably meant) very much is a statement of intent against the person(s) they're reporting - until proven otherwise, that person is guilty of the crime as reported.
You're conflating a personal belief of the victim with the actual legal side of a trial etc. A lot of the time the victims don't end up pressing charges. If someone came to me and told me they had been raped, I would believe them. I wouldn't demand proof. The legal side of it I am not commenting on at all.
Page 1 of 9 [ 438 posts ]