More unfairness for males
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  20 Dec 17 3.38pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
I think your judgement in these matters died a slow death a few years back with your months long disbelief of Jimmy Saville's victims, don't you?
Once again, if you believe what is said without contrary evidence do you believe the Bible? Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Dec 2017 3.39pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Dec 17 3.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Should always believe a victim when they come forward until the evidence says otherwise. Firstly, I don't agree with calling them the victim, they should be the complainant. The police should however certainly investigate any and all claims, accumulate all evidence and the decision should lie with the CPS, as to whether to prosecute. It should never be down to the police to determine if something happened or not. Their responsibility is to accumulate the evidence, and if there is sufficient evidence caution and charge individuals. Once the decision to charge has been made, only then should terms like victim be used. Otherwise the police will be colouring their perspective of events, that encourages increased bias towards the claimant. The police should act responsibly, and treat claimants and the accused in a manner that presumes nothing, and accumulate evidence towards conclusions.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Dec 17 3.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
The 1970s says 'hello' Arguably the problem of those eras, is that the police didn't keep an open mind. I think its reasonable for the police to investigate on the basis of a complaint, but that they should not be investigating with a view to interpreting evidence towards a conclusion they've presupposed; that's as dangerous as not believing someone.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Dec 17 3.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
That's what they are, so yes. I prefer the term claimant, accuser and accused pre-suppose evidence and are terms commonly associated with trial.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Dec 17 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If crime isn't driven by genetics then why do males commit more of it? I suspect they don't, they're more inclined towards certain types of crime than women. Crime is a sociological phenomena, as it relies on ethical rules not biological constructs. Plenty of women commit crimes, they tends towards a different area (and areas of crime that have more tolerance when it comes to policing and enforcement) - and they're less likely to receive custodial sentences for those crimes as they're less likely to be crimes against the person. For example, prostitution, shop lifting and non-payment of fines and bills, esp TV licence was dominated by female offenders.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Dec 17 4.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
So throwing kids out of university and ruining them with unproven sexual charges is ok with you? What exactly qualifies as a 'balance of evidence'? Only rich kids have been able to afford taking these universities to court. The same balance of evidence that's admissible within civil courts - the same as would be used for a tribunal or civil case. Which would of course be just as applicable if they'd sued for damages relating to rape. Edited by jamiemartin721 (20 Dec 2017 4.14pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 20 Dec 17 4.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Arguably the problem of those eras, is that the police didn't keep an open mind. I think its reasonable for the police to investigate on the basis of a complaint, but that they should not be investigating with a view to interpreting evidence towards a conclusion they've presupposed; that's as dangerous as not believing someone. I never had Kermit down as a Gene Hunt.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Dec 17 5.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I prefer the term claimant, accuser and accused pre-suppose evidence and are terms commonly associated with trial. Sure.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Dec 17 5.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I suspect they don't, they're more inclined towards certain types of crime than women. Crime is a sociological phenomena, as it relies on ethical rules not biological constructs. Plenty of women commit crimes, they tends towards a different area (and areas of crime that have more tolerance when it comes to policing and enforcement) - and they're less likely to receive custodial sentences for those crimes as they're less likely to be crimes against the person. For example, prostitution, shop lifting and non-payment of fines and bills, esp TV licence was dominated by female offenders. Well yeah....but I was kind of referring to the more serious crimes. Social constructs within societies obviously have their affects but we are biological beings with gender differences......though that isn't saying that the genders can't be very close with individuals or that you get a percentage of people with traits usually associated with the opposite gender. But the reasons there aren't many women on oil rigs isn't because they were given dolls at Christmas.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 20 Dec 17 5.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Let me get this right. You just believe people with no evidence? How about you investigate their claim and draw a conclusion based on the findings. Or is that too old fashioned for you?
2) Then follow the evidence 3) The truth will come out
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Dec 17 5.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well yeah....but I was kind of referring to the more serious crimes. Social constructs within societies obviously have their affects but we are biological beings with gender differences......though that isn't saying that the genders can't be very close with individuals or that you get a percentage of people with traits usually associated with the opposite gender. But the reasons there aren't many women on oil rigs isn't because they were given dolls at Christmas.
No but gender stereotypes do
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Dec 17 6.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
2) Then follow the evidence 3) The truth will come out
Believe is the wrong word. It's best to take their claim seriously and investigate without an assumption of guilt.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.