Jump to content

Philip Green

benjii

By benjii,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
The CPS don’t decide if someone is the victim of a crime, a court of law does. Being too drunk to consent to sex is rape, Evens was innocent of rape, ergo she had consensual sex.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That is not what the first jury decided so it was clearly not as clear cut as you would like to think. Also it is entirely possible to be a victim of crime if the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty. If the woman in the Evans case had consensual sex, how come she had absolutely no idea of what happened to her? Perhaps you are the type who like your women unconscious or drunk or drugged out of their brains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
That is not what the first jury decided so it was clearly not as clear cut as you would like to think. Also it is entirely possible to be a victim of crime if the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty. If the woman in the Evans case had consensual sex, how come she had absolutely no idea of what happened to her? Perhaps you are the type who like your women unconscious or drunk or drugged out of their brains?

 

We work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. His conviction was quashed and therefore he is an innocent man until it is proven otherwise. It's interesting how hesitant you are to exonerate him of the crime of rape now his conviction has been overturned. At the time you took many opportunities to brand him all sorts of things and scream rape apologist at those who called for some moderation and who reckoned he had a decent chance of success with an appeal. From memory there were a lot of people saying he acted like an idiot and didn't seem like a particularly pleasant individual at all but that that didn't amount to rape. Presumably you're happy that justice appears to have been done in that case? If you aren't happy with that outcome then why not? It couldn't be because how you feel about a verdict and a conviction has an awful lot to do with what you feel about the person being accused could it? Oh and lets remember what I posted at the time:

 

Some people read up on the details of the case and came to the conclusion that there appeared to be some inconsistencies about this particular case. When this was pointed out they were accused of being rape apologists both on here and in the media.

 

If an appeal is now successful then hopefully those people will reflect on jumping on the bandwagon so soon and labelling people simply for questioning the judgement of the court (which everyone agrees is not infallible.)

 

You're probaby the type of person who watches Making a Murderer and then sides with the original prosecutor and sees it as a triumph for the legal system rather than a travesty of justice.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
That is not what the first jury decided so it was clearly not as clear cut as you would like to think. Also it is entirely possible to be a victim of crime if the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty. If the woman in the Evans case had consensual sex, how come she had absolutely no idea of what happened to her? Perhaps you are the type who like your women unconscious or drunk or drugged out of their brains?

 

Oh, so when he's found guilty he's bang to rights and we must take the decision of the court, but when he's subsequently found guilty he's still potentially guilty in your eyes. What bull**** you come out with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
We work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. His conviction was quashed and therefore he is an innocent man until it is proven otherwise. It's interesting how hesitant you are to exonerate him of the crime of rape now his conviction has been overturned. At the time you took many opportunities to brand him all sorts of things and scream rape apologist at those who called for some moderation and who reckoned he had a decent chance of success with an appeal. From memory there were a lot of people saying he acted like an idiot and didn't seem like a particularly pleasant individual at all but that that didn't amount to rape. Presumably you're happy that justice appears to have been done in that case? If you aren't happy with that outcome then why not? It couldn't be because how you feel about a verdict and a conviction has an awful lot to do with what you feel about the person being accused could it? Oh and lets remember what I posted at the time:

 

 

 

You're probaby the type of person who watches Making a Murderer and then sides with the original prosecutor and sees it as a triumph for the legal system rather than a travesty of justice.

 

Hear hear, completely right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
Follow this soppy sods logic & The Birmingham six’s innocence is not as clear cut as people think.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Even by your low standards Duckie this is a very crass statement. Too much weed yesterday? Perhaps I should throw the OJ Simpson v Nicola Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman back at you? Still, at least you are prepared to accept that there are miscarriages of justice, which brings us back to Evans and his mate.

 

The definition of a victim is someone who has been taken advantage of. CCTV footage shows that this woman could barely walk that night. She awoke the next day not knowing where she was or who she had been with the night before. Fair game? Maybe to you she was and clearly to Evans and his buddy.

 

With the evidence they had the jury found Evans guilty of rape in the initial trial. They let his mate walk which surprised me as if she wasnt considered fit enough to consent to Evans how was she in a state to consent to his mate? Still, guilty he was found and he served his time after several attempts at appeal were over ruled.

 

 

He then gets his retrial after two new witnesses come forward. Where were they either during or just after the first trial you ask yourself and why did their evidence sound so similar? The CPS believe that the Evans camp paid these witnesses, but the judge in the retrial didnt accept this. Fair enough, but the CPS just dont just pluck this stuff out of thin air and they and the police would have reasons to make their claim, even if they couldnt prove it to a judge. The Evans camp released the name of the victim on social media and I believe, continue to do so (illegal by the way). From the beginning they have been working hard to trash the name of the victim (who, by the way, did not bring this case to court). In the second trial he was found not guilty of rape and acquitted. All this means is that in the eyes of the law he did not rape the women. In the eyes of the law OJ Simpson did not kill his ex wife and her friend. In the eyes of the law the Birmingham Six were initially guilty.

 

 

Everyone is entitled to have a point of view on these cases and their verdicts. Apparently, according to the usual suspects on here, I am not.

 

 

Perhaps women who are off their heads on drink and or drugs are still fair game according to some. Personally I think it is good that the CJS is seeking to protect people who are in no fit state to make rational decisions. Still if you think that what Evans and his mate did does not constitute a violation and were perfectly entitled to do what they wanted with someone off their head, fair play to you.

 

 

Anyway, you dragged Ched Evans onto a Philip Green thread so if you want to continue, perhaps you should take your defence of Evans back to his thread along with your buddies and let us get back to debating the rights and wrongs of Parliamentary privilege?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
Oh, so when he's found guilty he's bang to rights and we must take the decision of the court, but when he's subsequently found guilty he's still potentially guilty in your eyes. What bull**** you come out with.

 

You don't believe that guilty people have walked away from court then? That UJ is bull****. Do you have a view on whether OJ Simpson killed his wife and her friend or do you just think that he must be innocent because a jury said so?

 

 

Bringing this back to the subject matter, if Green is charged he will face a trial at which he will be either found guilty or innocent of those charges. If it were a normal person our names would already be in the media. He has lots of money and power and was able to gag the press. There are reasons why alleged offenders can be named pre trial and victims names cannot. One is to protect the victims and encourage them to go through a legal process (which by the way, can be very arduous). Another is to possibly prompt others who feel that they have a case against the same person to come forward. As we know from recent history, many abused people do not say anything. The #metoo unit shows that all too clearly (unless you think they are all lying - which is a possibility although unlikely). Green is clearly an odious individual but he is not being accused of being odious, he is being accused of being a bully and of sexual harassment. Privilege and power should not prevent him going through the same procedure as the rest of us. If you believe that it is okay to gag the press, then perhaps you should be campaigning for us all to have the same rights, not just the wealthy and the privileged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted (edited)
You don't believe that guilty people have walked away from court then? That UJ is bull****. Do you have a view on whether OJ Simpson killed his wife and her friend or do you just think that he must be innocent because a jury said so?

 

 

Bringing this back to the subject matter, if Green is charged he will face a trial at which he will be either found guilty or innocent of those charges. If it were a normal person our names would already be in the media. He has lots of money and power and was able to gag the press. There are reasons why alleged offenders can be named pre trial and victims names cannot. One is to protect the victims and encourage them to go through a legal process (which by the way, can be very arduous). Another is to possibly prompt others who feel that they have a case against the same person to come forward. As we know from recent history, many abused people do not say anything. The #metoo unit shows that all too clearly (unless you think they are all lying - which is a possibility although unlikely). Green is clearly an odious individual but he is not being accused of being odious, he is being accused of being a bully and of sexual harassment. Privilege and power should not prevent him going through the same procedure as the rest of us. If you believe that it is okay to gag the press, then perhaps you should be campaigning for us all to have the same rights, not just the wealthy and the privileged?

 

And you don't think innocent people have been wrongly imprisoned, like Ched Evans? He was convicted of rape, after having sex with a known trollop - yet he spent two years in prison and he lost two years of earnings. I'm sorry, but that's not on. There was a lot of 'missing' evidence on the CPS side, including CCTV which would have helped with the case and missing witnesses. It seems to be the CPS really wanted to prosecute this case. However the point is that they are innocent until proven guilty. He has been found not guilty, so he should be able to live his life in that way, without people like you sneering at him because he couldn't gauge how drunk a girl was. The likelihood is he got consent - the issue is the girl can't remember giving it. So is that down to Ched Evans, or is it down to the girl?

 

OJ is an unfortunate case, that was spoilt due to the media being involved. If that case was not released to the public, he would have been found guilty. As soon as the press are involved, it can be difficult to get the correct verdict.

 

If it was a normal person, no-one would give a ****, surely? Why would the press even pick up on this? It's due to this that the press is gagged. Once they have been charged, it's fair game.

 

It's the usual schadenfreude from those in our society who like to celebrate and denigrate "Celebrities" - big them up so they can come crashing down.

 

Until he is charged, he should be anonymous, as should anyone else.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
And you don't think innocent people have been wrongly imprisoned, like Ched Evans? He was convicted of rape, after having sex with a known trollop - yet he spent two years in prison and he lost two years of earnings. I'm sorry, but that's not on. There was a lot of 'missing' evidence on the CPS side, including CCTV which would have helped with the case and missing witnesses. It seems to be the CPS really wanted to prosecute this case. However the point is that they are innocent until proven guilty. He has been found not guilty, so he should be able to live his life in that way, without people like you sneering at him because he couldn't gauge how drunk a girl was. The likelihood is he got consent - the issue is the girl can't remember giving it. So is that down to Ched Evans, or is it down to the girl?

 

OJ is an unfortunate case, that was spoilt due to the media being involved. If that case was not released to the public, he would have been found guilty. As soon as the press are involved, it can be difficult to get the correct verdict.

 

If it was a normal person, no-one would give a ****, surely? Why would the press even pick up on this? It's due to this that the press is gagged. Once they have been charged, it's fair game.

 

It's the usual schadenfreude from those in our society who like to celebrate and denigrate "Celebrities" - big them up so they can come crashing down.

 

Until he is charged, he should be anonymous, as should anyone else.

 

Lets be honest, if his name had been Ched Muhammed and he was a slightly darker shade of white, soggy would be all over it telling people not to jump to conclusions and that other people are just as bad etc etc. If you looked into the facts of this case it was clear that there was a good chance for an appeal but when that was pointed out soggy was screaming that anyone who said that was a rape apologist. When he was subsequently acquitted of rape, rather than admitting he had been a bit hasty for jumping on people who thought an appeal would win, he doubled down and even now has a lot of difficulty admitting that Ched Evans is not a rapist even if he isn't a particularly nice human being. His political views, his nationality or his gender should have no bearing on the outcome of the case unless any of those things were a factor in the alleged crime.

 

This is relevant to the Phillip Green discussion because there is a clear divide between those who want the law applied evenly regardless of the individual and those who would prefer different rules for people whose political views they disagree with or whose personality they dislike. I'd defend odious individuals in that regard such as Phillip Green but also those on the opposite side of the spectrum such as Owen Jones. Soggy prefers the identity politics approach to the law where it differs depending on who the person is. Thus a white, lower class Brexit supporter who is acquitted on appeal for a crime is probably a little bit guilty anyway whilst a Corbynist vegan is definitely innocent.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

This is relevant to the Phillip Green discussion because there is a clear divide between those who want the law applied evenly regardless of the individual and those who would prefer different rules for people whose political views they disagree with or whose personality they dislike. I'd defend odious individuals in that regard such as Phillip Green but also those on the opposite side of the spectrum such as Owen Jones. Soggy prefers the identity politics approach to the law.

 

I can't see the relevance - how can naming a rape or alleged rape victim possibly be in the public interest?

 

With Green I accept that naming him was probably a mis-use of the Parliamentary privilege and don't support it in principle but think that the rich using NDAs to get away with dodgy behaviour is a more important issue than Lords interfering with press gaging legal cases so support what Hain did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
I can't see the relevance - how can naming a rape or alleged rape victim possibly be in the public interest?

 

With Green I accept that naming him was probably a mis-use of the Parliamentary privilege and don't support it in principle but think that the rich using NDAs to get away with dodgy behaviour is a more important issue than Lords interfering with press gaging legal cases so support what Hain did.

 

Well then we agree. The second part pf your response is an opinion which I respect but equally I'm sure you can agree that others will look at the situation and still don't believe that Parliamentary privilege should be misused in the way it was. If there is something wrong with NDAs then the law should be changed, people shouldn't be making a mockery of the legal process by ignoring it. What about all the other people who have NDAs? Why should Phillip Greens ones be ignored simply because he is Phillip Green and is generally viewed as a bit of an a*sehole?

 

And my view is not that a rape victim should be named in Parliament, but that it is for the courts to determine what is in the publuc interest, not a random MP.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Well then we agree. The second part pf your response is an opinion which I respect but equally I'm sure you can agree that others will look at the situation and still don't believe that Parliamentary privilege should be misused in the way it was. If there is something wrong with NDAs then the law should be changed, people shouldn't be making a mockery of the legal process by ignoring it. What about all the other people who have NDAs? Why should Phillip Greens ones be ignored simply because he is Phillip Green and is generally viewed as a bit of an a*sehole?

 

And my view is not that a rape victim should be named in Parliament, but that it is for the courts to determine what is in the publuc interest, not a random MP.

 

I think this perfectly sums it all up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
I think this perfectly sums it all up.
It seems like a fairly mundane difference of opinion to me. Why certain posters have to make out that its some outlandish point of view because there's a disagreement over the extent to which they support parliamentary privilege being misused I have no idea. I think the majority see it as a misuse, its just that some people think that misuse is justified because they see an unfairness in the concept of ndas and rich people being able to buy silence. I think that's a separate discussion and something which may have merit but I think if people genuinely cared about that issue they would be lobbying for law changes or trying to get things altered rather than just hating on Philip Green. Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...