Harvey Weinstein Sentenced To 23 Years In Prison

[TheDevil]

And the movement has momentum!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/11/harvey-weinstein-sentenced-23-years-prison/

[pixie374]

What anyone "thinks" is no proof. They may do and men may be wrongly not convicted. Opinions aren't statistics though.

[TheDevil]

"it isn't really "yawn" to me"

Fair enough, I tip my hat to you.

Trying to convince some old white men about current day rape allegations I feel is futile. They;ll think what they want, regardless.

Naomi, have you falsy accused someone of rape, or would you?

[Spicerack]

// The number of men found guilty "prove" the woman was telling the truth. The number of women found guilty of false accusations "prove" the man was.//

Nonsense.

[naomi24]

Pixie, no, opinions aren't statistics - and statistics can't necessarily be relied upon. We know that much at least.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // I think a lot of women cry rape falsely. //

How many do you consider to be 'a lot'?

[pixie374]

I put "prove" in speech marks, you notice, because I agree in a way. But that is all we have. You do seem to become entirely irrational on this subject and I really don't want to know why.

[TheDevil]

"Nonsense."

If you don't have faith in our justice system then that' your fault, and i'm sure you can take actions in your own way to change it, or at least try.

[TheDevil]

"Naomi, have you falsy accused someone of rape, or would you?"
As a woman, Naomi, who seems to think it happens "a lot". Have you ever done it?

[pixie374]

Tbf, I don't imagine the justice system always gets it right. But we know that the burden is always on the accuser, so it is never going to be 50/50. But more 90/10. As the assumption is not guilty from the start.

[Mozz71]

Jesus wept. I hope loved ones of some of the posters here I never subject to sexual assault. They'd get little support from their nearest and dearest.

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // Jesus wept. I hope loved ones of some of the posters here I never subject to sexual assault. They'd get little support from their nearest and dearest. //

It does give you pause for thought doesn;t it?

I have posted on more or less every debate on this site that involves sexual abuse against women, and on every thread, there have been people who, to varying degrees, seem keen to find any and all excuses they can for the perpetrators, to what can only be described as a concerning degree of intensity.

[naomi24]

Pixie, // it is never going to be 50/50. But more 90/10//

Another opinion.

[Spicerack]

Some of us prefer the rule of law to virtue-signalling and insulting people.
Plus, I suspect we're more intelligent.

[pixie374]

Ok, not 50/50 is fact. I don't know the percentage needed to convict someone, I agree.
But we know how it works and that somebody can only be convicted if there is proof "beyond reasonable doubt"- so whatever that really means.
Because of the weighting, which we all know.... we know that if anyone is convicted, we can be pretty much certain they did it- with very rare exceptions (especially nowadays).
But if somebody is found "not guilty" or not got to trial, it tells us absolutely nothing. It could be anything from- completely innocent... not sure... to completely guilty but not enough proof.

[pixie374]

Spice, that answers nothing. Keep wriggling....

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // Some of us prefer the rule of law to virtue-signalling ... //

That infers that there is you and 'your side' who agree with the rule of law, and, I would suggest, at least myself and 'my side' who do not - so let's address that point first.

I have never ever remotely hinted that I do not agree with the rule of law, but it is not the rule of law that this debate has focused on.

It is the inference offered by 'your side' that Mr Weinstein may not be guilty of some charges, mitigated by the 'behaviour' of some of his victims.

// ... and insulting people // -

You really are on dodgy ground on that point, you have hardly covered yourself with glory re. the 'insult' aspects of this thread, so let's leave that one there shall we?

// Plus, I suspect we're more intelligent. //

A lofty and unfounded assumption based I suggest on nothing more than personal prejudice, which has no place in the debate whatsoever.

[TheDevil]

"Some of us prefer the rule of law to virtue-signalling and insulting people."

Well if you prefer the rule of law then you'll accept that false rape allegation statistics stem from trials, which are based around the law.

[andy-hughes]

TheDevil - // "Some of us prefer the rule of law to virtue-signalling and insulting people."

Well if you prefer the rule of law then you'll accept that false rape allegation statistics stem from trials, which are based around the law. //

Anyone who lives in a civilised society as a mature adult agrees with the rule of law.

It is only Spicerack who seems to feel he is entitled (utterly without foundation) to the moral high ground, because he feels the need to state it his adherence as though it somehow bolsters his argument.

Clearly it does not, any more than stating that he is subject to the law of gravity would!