Sexual Abuse and Prominent People

[Nearly Sane]

How do you balance that against the right of somebody falsely accused to defend themselves and their reputation?

and a big hello to the false dichotomy. Rhiannon's post didn't say someone should always be believed .  Just not assumed to be wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't.

She could be mistaken that the incident happened at all. She could be mistaken that the incident was rape (if she consented but forgot that she consented). She could be mistaken about the identity of the rapist.

And must obviously be wrong. In some way she cannot be telling the truth. You, Lena, and Dunning Kruger up a tree....

[jeremyp]

No they said it was a false report.

I already quoted the statement they made. Why are you still claiming a falsehood?

They did not say it was a false report, they said "our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year". The word "false" is not used. They do not claim the report is wrong, only that they are confident it is wrong.

[jeremyp]

And must obviously be wrong. In some way she cannot be telling the truth.

And not telling the truth is not the same as lying. Lying requires the knowledge that what you say is false.

[Walter]

So given he supports Weinstein who has been accused of rape and is on tape about sexual assault, you think it's all gone crazy. You do realise that in your daughter's complaint against her manager, Morrissey is on the manager's side?

No, my daughters case is obvious and blatant , that's not what Morrissey is referring to  , unless I've read it wrongly?

[Rhiannon]

No, my daughters case is obvious and blatant , that's not what Morrissey is referring to  , unless I've read it wrongly?

And the Weinstein claims aren’t obvious?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

So one feminist screws up and that tells you something about other feminists? Really? How about I say that your comments tells me a great deal not only about you as a man, but about some men?

To repeat, Dunham didn't 'make a fool' of herself. She said something very damaging. It isn't something to gloat over.

She changed her mind because the "sisterhood" told her she was off message. Nothing at all to do with the case in point.

[Nearly Sane]

She changed her mind because the "sisterhood" told her she was off message. Nothing at all to do with the case in point.

You love those quote marks. Surely whatever happens with the case in point - i.e Lena Dunham's take is to do with the case in point i.e Lena Dunham's take?

[Nearly Sane]

No, my daughters case is obvious and blatant , that's not what Morrissey is referring to  , unless I've read it wrongly?

And the case of someone saying they were raped by Weinstein is just something that wasn't obvious and blatant because Morrissey said so?

[Nearly Sane]

And not telling the truth is not the same as lying. Lying requires the knowledge that what you say is false.

Except if you say it's a 'false report' that's part of the package. There was nothing in Dunham's statement about confusion or wrong person - just that it was false.

[Nearly Sane]

I already quoted the statement they made. Why are you still claiming a falsehood?

They did not say it was a false report, they said "our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year". The word "false" is not used. They do not claim the report is wrong, only that they are confident it is wrong.

' Misreported' - so the person isn't being false in some way? What are they saying but a claim to truth? How do you get there?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

You love those quote marks. Surely whatever happens with the case in point - i.e Lena Dunham's take is to do with the case in point i.e Lena Dunham's take?

The case in point has not been heard yet.

[Rhiannon]

The case in point has not been heard yet.

So why is it wrong for ‘the sisterhood’ to call Dunham our for prejudging it publicly?

[Nearly Sane]

The case in point has not been heard yet.

What's that got to do with saying that talking about the case in point isn't to do with the case in point?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

So why is it wrong for ‘the sisterhood’ to call Dunham our for prejudging it publicly?

Dunham went from saying that she trusted a friend, to saying that she does not trust him anymore, just because her friend is male & the allegations against him were made by a female.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

What's that got to do with saying that talking about the case in point isn't to do with the case in point?

If you really enjoy this kind of thing check out the exchange between the Pirate King & Major General Stanley in Act I of The Pirates of Penzance.

[Nearly Sane]

Dunham went from saying that she trusted a friend, to saying that she does not trust him anymore, just because her friend is male & the allegations against him were made by a female.

it seems to me the problem is as so often a false dichotomy. I can trust a friend and say I believe what they say without saying that someone disagreeing with them must be wrong. As bluehillside correctly makes clear often, truth here is probabilitistic - so I can take the position that isn't an absolute.

[Nearly Sane]

If you really enjoy this kind of thing check out the exchange between the Pirate King & Major General Stanley in Act I of The Pirates of Penzance.

I think Humph is the G&S fan

[Rhiannon]

Dunham went from saying that she trusted a friend, to saying that she does not trust him anymore, just because her friend is male & the allegations against him were made by a female.

No she didn't say that at all. Either you have misunderstood what she said or you are lying.

But that still doesn't explain why you think 'the sisterhood' were wrong for telling her not to prejudge the situation.

[Robbie]

Disturbing report from the Beeb regarding the JW attitude to child abuse....which appears to be much worse than previously suspected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42025255

Yes it is Anchor but nothing new, s I don't repeat myself please see post 275 above.

Here's one about the Brethren and there are plenty more:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268926/I-raped-leader-Exclusive-Brethren-Shock-testimony-man-alleges-abused-child-Big-Jim-Taylor-rocks-churchs-claim-charitable-status.html

[floo]

Being disbelieved is an added trauma on top of abuse and rape. It's a disgusting and abominable thing to accuse someone of lying before the facts have been established.

I agree.

[Walter]

couldn't resist this
anyone of a delicate nature DO NOT WATCH , you have been warned

https://youtu.be/_MC9L4nzmHs

[Robbie]

I well understand why the accused is named pre-trial and the accuser not, in cases of sexual assault because others who may have been abused by the accused will feel more confident to come forward. However, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm beginning to think it might be better for nobody's names to be made public until there is a trial or at least a pre-trial hearing, whatever it's called (arraignment in America).

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sympathetic to that but so many people who felt able to talk out against Savile did so on the basis that it wasn't them against Savile. Given the fear of coming forward because of possible repercussions it is not an easy balance.

[Robbie]

I agree it isn't easy, I'm torn but some of the stuff I've read today, by people not personally involved but sympathetic, makes me feel it can often muddle the issue & it might be better if they hadn't spoken. The court of public opinion has already found the alleged guilty before any evidence is presented.  It's often the same with other types of offences.