The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[Brian Peacock]

[Scot Dutchy]

Anyone defending that git is also defending the orange scrotum. Oh you are........

[Forty Two]

So, who is the "mystery A-list oscar winning actor" who is now a target in the Weinstein scandal? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4699662/o ... e-scandal/

And, what are the legal reasons he can't be named? What's up with that? We can name Weinstein, but not this other bloke? Why?

[mistermack]

If someone murders your dear old mother, it has to be proved in court beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the guilty person gets off.
If someone cons you out of your life's savings, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If someone knifes you in the back, and leaves you paralysed in a wheelchair, it still has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
That's our legal system. A lot of people get off some horrendous crimes, because the evidence is weak. And that state of affairs has been arrived at, after hundreds of years of gradually evolving justice.
It's a horrible state of affairs, when the evidence is strong, but not conclusive. It hurts. But it also hurts when innocent people pay a huge price for something that they didn't do.

All of a sudden, sex crimes are different. "It's about time we believed the victims" is the cry.
As if claiming something makes it true.

People make false accusations all the time. People "bend" the truth about what happened all the time too.
People even convince themselves that something different happened.
And when there's a financial incentive, a lot more people will do all of that stuff.
You can keep your heads in the sand if you like. Maybe it makes you feel like a white knight, riding to the rescue of the oppressed.

I prefer to face reality myself.

[Brian Peacock]

Court injunction?

[Galaxian]

If someone murders your dear old mother, it has to be proved in court beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the guilty person gets off.
If someone cons you out of your life's savings, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If someone knifes you in the back, and leaves you paralysed in a wheelchair, it still has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
That's our legal system. A lot of people get off some horrendous crimes, because the evidence is weak. And that state of affairs has been arrived at, after hundreds of years of gradually evolving justice.
It's a horrible state of affairs, when the evidence is strong, but not conclusive. It hurts. But it also hurts when innocent people pay a huge price for something that they didn't do.

All of a sudden, sex crimes are different. "It's about time we believed the victims" is the cry.
As if claiming something makes it true.

People make false accusations all the time. People "bend" the truth about what happened all the time too.
People even convince themselves that something different happened.
And when there's a financial incentive, a lot more people will do all of that stuff.
You can keep your heads in the sand if you like. Maybe it makes you feel like a white knight, riding to the rescue of the oppressed.
I prefer to face reality myself.

Plain speaking logic at its best

Compared with this:

....

The actual, operative Statute of Limitations is 25 years or longer, in most "civilized" countries

Citation needed. Or it would be if it wasn't for your nonsense that "the later a complaint is made, the more valid it is... as demonstrated by actual cases." The outcomes of actual cases are less likely a "guilty" verdict the more time has intervened.

To which I had already responded ...before he wrote it. (Anticipation or time travel?):

Where you read 20 lines on a page, I read 39. That's my advantage!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu5IaN9Imb0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cztdu-k-MWw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRqeqWSUUaM


So you, Mr Hermit, are wrong. I stand by what I said...if you get my drift. The law is what is actually operated, NOT what is written. The written part is a consolation prize, a scam for losers. Accusations of 'rape' are given more serious consideration the longer the passage of time, because it's good for business; the legal business. Furthermore, it is generally a spurious allegation, since the claim of distress can be contrived by any sob-story artiste, since there is normally no actual visible harm. So any claim can be made, and listened to by SJW self-serving courts.

But snowflakes, such as some on forums, can't bear emotional trauma, nor can their partisan pretentious advocates. Dying & mutilated children under a barrage of NATO bombs don't matter... they had it coming. Female genital mutilation is OK, Hillary hobnobs with their Saudi advocates, so it must be halal. But make a claim of sexual improprieties & offended feelings (as religions & zealots always have done) and every judge & jury in the USA sits up & bays for blood! (and money)

[Rum]

The irony of it. You see vested interest exploiting made up allegations of sexual abuse fore gain and profit but by dismissing them you are in fact aiding and abetting the perpetrators. A wide ranging enquiry was set up in the UK in 2014 after a tsunami of scandal: the deaths of prolific but protected abusers, BBC DJ Jimmy Savile and Liberal politician Cyril Smith, and longstanding suspicions about other Westminster politicians. Speculation about organised networks of men sexually exploiting children amplified the clamour to do something. These were powerful people who could 'protect' themselves, The extent of the issue was so great and there was so much to cover that the chair resigned saying it was too big a job. And yet you, in your ignorance dismiss that groundswell of concern and mountain of reported cases because their is no direct forensic evidence in many cases.

Well you mental head casse I'm here to tell you that I worked in child protection for 14 years as a caseworker and you have not the faintest idea of the extent of sexual exploitation of vulnerable kids by adults. Not the fucking foggiest.

Crawl back into your little den of paranoia and fantasise about something you knowe just a little more about. That will of course be bollocks too.

[Forty Two]

Rum and Mistermack, there is no conflict between either of your positions on this. One need not accept allegations as true at face value in order to take them with appropriate seriousness.

[pErvinalia]

Dying & mutilated children under a barrage of NATO bombs don't matter... they had it coming.

You're the one who supports the guy who wants to turn a large part of North Korea to glass.

Female genital mutilation is OK,

Where didn't anyone say that FGM is ok? And, no, the voices in your head don't count..

[Rum]

(Edit: following on from 42s post above)

I was responding to Glaxo, though MM takes a similar stance - that the benefit of the doubt goes too far in the direction of the accuser.

The facts of the matter are that around 1980 there was a sudden explosion in referrals to child protection agencies - one they were completely unprepared for. They followed a couple of high profile deaths of children at the hands of adults. Suddenly a world that was previously only whispered about in hushed tones, dealt with (when it ever was) with surreptitious and hushed deals and a general sense of denial - was out in the open. My particular office in a medium sized county town in the UK had received perhaps one child abuse/sexual abuse referral or so a month. At the time of this 'boom' it shot up to about ten a week. Some referrals proved groundless, others evaporated when the kid(s) thought they were going to cause more disruption to their lives than was worth it and the rest were dealt with - about 80% or so as an estimate.

People woke up to the reality of child cexual abuse - socially as well as professionally. It is so common as to almost be considered 'normal' frankly. We won't and don't accept that of course, but it happens everywhere and extremely commonly. The likes of MM and Glaxo's positions only strengthen the hand of abusers who thrive on doubt and uncertainty.

I'm not an idealists 'snowflake' as I think Glaxo referred to some of us. Far from it. 14 years of doing that work made me hard as nails about it - as well as ultimately burnt out (I moved on). Some accusations are malicious, some are about attention seeking, some are about greed if they crop up much later on. But most, I suspect are make only because the victim finally feels the risk of speaking out is worth it.

[pErvinalia]

[Galaxian]

The irony of it. You see vested interest exploiting made up allegations of sexual abuse fore gain and profit but by dismissing them you are in fact aiding and abetting the perpetrators. A wide ranging enquiry was set up in the UK in 2014 after a tsunami of scandal: the deaths of prolific but protected abusers, BBC DJ Jimmy Savile and Liberal politician Cyril Smith, and longstanding suspicions about other Westminster politicians. Speculation about organised networks of men sexually exploiting children amplified the clamour to do something. These were powerful people who could 'protect' themselves, The extent of the issue was so great and there was so much to cover that the chair resigned saying it was too big a job. And yet you, in your ignorance dismiss that groundswell of concern and mountain of reported cases because their is no direct forensic evidence in many cases.
Well you mental head casse I'm here to tell you that I worked in child protection for 14 years as a caseworker and you have not the faintest idea of the extent of sexual exploitation of vulnerable kids by adults. Not the fucking foggiest.
Crawl back into your little den of paranoia and fantasise about something you knowe just a little more about. That will of course be bollocks too.

Of course there's no irony, except in your head. And there's no groundswell of concern except in your wishful thinking.

You needn't take out your frustrations on Galaxian. So, you worked in 'child protection' for 14 years. Did you actually achieve anything, or simply kicked the can down the road? And that gave you a warm, fuzzy feeling?

How do you KNOW that I don't have "the faintest idea of the extent of sexual exploitation of vulnerable kids by adults. Not the fucking foggiest."? The fact is that, in the final analysis: "There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection!". Does it give you a sense of accomplishment to be ignorant of that fact?

You bring up instances of the rich, famous, & powerful who do what ever they want, yet learn NOTHING from it... perhaps do NOT want to learn anything; hence your shallow vilification of those who DO know, such as Galaxian. So cosy to be wrapped in a blanket of self deceit, punching at shadows on the wall, while bigotry & a refusal to wake up blind you to the realities of existence.

Have you wondered for a minute how & why the rich, famous & powerful have got away, and still get away with whatever they want to do? It's because the LAW supports them. What law? The actual law as practiced & enforced by other... rich, famous & powerful entities. It is because their every move is monitored and there is an entrance fee to pay, an initiation ceremony that involves pedophilia (among other things). In other words; virtually ALL of them are involved, not just Jimmy Savile. In your 14 years you would have brushed up against some of them, and not recognized or suspected it. They had you totally bamboozled.

So you have NOTHING to say, except to rant & rave at the clear-sighted who can see near & far without the use of rose tinted glasses. Do not even try to criticize Galaxian; you don't have a leg to stand on. And BTW, learn to use your spell-checker.

[Forty Two]

(Edit: following on from 42s post above)

I was responding to Glaxo, though MM takes a similar stance - that the benefit of the doubt goes too far in the direction of the accuser.

Well, it all depends on what context we're in. If we start with criminal responsibility, then there is no "benefit of the doubt" awarded either way. The analysis is whether the offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So, any doubt which is reasonable means there should be no conviction. However, not being convicted is not a determination of "innocence."

If we are talking about whether to accept, in our daily lives, outside of the criminal court system, an accuser's allegation, I apply the same standard to any allegation. Since I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. I have no idea who is more credible than whom, and who has proof of what, until someone provides the basis for the accusation. If a friend whom I trust comes to me and says "Harvey Weinstein hit me with his dick," then I'm likely going to say "wow, that sucks - what a jerk." If it's some actor somewhere, that I don't know, then I'm going to basically ask, if we have an accusation and a denial, what reason there is to believe one over the other. I would grant neither one the benefit of the doubt. If there is reason to believe one over the other, then I make the determination on a case by case basis.

The facts of the matter are that around 1980 there was a sudden explosion in referrals to child protection agencies - one they were completely unprepared for. They followed a couple of high profile deaths of children at the hands of adults. Suddenly a world that was previously only whispered about in hushed tones, dealt with (when it ever was) with surreptitious and hushed deals and a general sense of denial - was out in the open. My particular office in a medium sized county town in the UK had received perhaps one child abuse/sexual abuse referral or so a month. At the time of this 'boom' it shot up to about ten a week. Some referrals proved groundless, others evaporated when the kid(s) thought they were going to cause more disruption to their lives than was worth it and the rest were dealt with - about 80% or so as an estimate.

Yes, but there is a standard of proof required, and if it's met your Child Protective Services department takes action. Usually, that standard of proof is something more like a preponderance of the evidence, rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Using an extreme example to make a point as to what is to be guarded against is the McMartin day care abuse scandal in the 1980s, and other incidents in the "day care hysteria." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_ ... e_hysteria

There are competing interests here, and they are valid. We obviously want people, especially children, protected, and we need mechanisms of enforcement so action can be taken against wrongdoers. But, we also need to be mindful of due process, and of the fact that people ARE falsely accused sometimes, and people ARE falsely convicted sometimes, and the State and Child Protective Services CAN sometimes be a force for injustice, rather than justice.

People woke up to the reality of child cexual abuse - socially as well as professionally. It is so common as to almost be considered 'normal' frankly. We won't and don't accept that of course, but it happens everywhere and extremely commonly. The likes of MM and Glaxo's positions only strengthen the hand of abusers who thrive on doubt and uncertainty.

I am not sure what the numbers are, in terms of the rate of child sexual abuse and how common it is. My perception is that it happens in a small percentage of children are sexually abused.

I'm not an idealists 'snowflake' as I think Glaxo referred to some of us. Far from it. 14 years of doing that work made me hard as nails about it - as well as ultimately burnt out (I moved on). Some accusations are malicious, some are about attention seeking, some are about greed if they crop up much later on. But most, I suspect are make only because the victim finally feels the risk of speaking out is worth it.

Your comments are valid, and understandable. However, it also needs to be acknowledged that in the family law matter the incidents of reports skyrocket when one parent or another stands to benefit from the report.

Perceptions of the frequency of abuse are interesting to contemplate, too. For example, it's generally thought of that priests are committing abusive acts at higher rates, but the numbers seem to belie that. They seem to commit sexual abuse acts at about the same rate as the general population. Their religion doesn't make them better, obviously. But, they are also not committing the acts at higher rates than the gen pop.

Our society is prone to overreaction and misunderstanding of dangers and risks. Nowadays, the risk of the day is "stranger danger." In the US, it's becoming almost a crime to let children play outside unsupervised in suburban and exurban neighborhoods. The media and scuttlebutt is that the neighborhoods are teeming with abusers and kidnappers. The reality is that the likelihood of children being attacked or abused by strangers nowadays is far lower than it was 20, 30 and 40 years ago, back when we thought it was safe to roam the neighborhoods.

Take another example, not of the sexual abuse variety, but of the "cars are the silent killers" variety. We have gone so hyperactive about child safety that a person cannot leave the car running at the gas station, with a 10 year old in the back seat, and run in and pay for gasoline and buy a coke for 2 minutes. The mantra "never leave a child in the car!" is all over social media. And, "even if a child is there for 2 minutes, call the police! Break the window!" It's to the point where my wife will not return the grocery cart to the cart corral, 50 feet away, at the grocery store because she is concerned that some busybody will accuse her of leaving the kids in the car. If I have our 4 year old in the car, and I'm going to run in to pick up a gallon of milk at the local convenience store - I take her out of the carseat, walk her into the store, haggle and argue with her over whether she's going to get another toy or a piece of candy, and take 10 times as long to get in and out of the store, just so that i don't risk having some asshat call the cops or break my window, or jot my license plate down, resulting in me getting a visit from social services.

We have airlines who won't let unaccompanied minors sit next to men, because they think men are high risk potential abusers. They can sit next to women, who also abuse children, but not men.

It's a really interesting phenomenon, but at bottom, the reality is that your expressed concern is valid. Children are abused. Women are sexually harassed, assaulted and raped. We need effective methods of protecting them, and of securing redress when an offense has been committed. But, it must ALSO be acknowledged that we cannot have a system where proof is not required because we are concerned that requiring proof will discourage reporting. The competing interests are both valid, which is what I meant by saying you and mistermack have positions that are not necessarily in conflict.

Take a look at some of the things that have gone on in the world of sexual harassment and assault these last few years - Mattress girl, the Duke Lacrosse team, the Virginia fraternity rape case reported in Rolling Stone, the Gian Ghomeshi case in Canada, The David Jia case out of University of Miami, just to name a few. I've heard it reported from the feminist side of things that such allegations are "rare" (between 2 and 10 % of allegations being false) -- well, if it's closer to 10%, I don't consider it very rare at all. 10%is not peanuts. That is, of course, not to say that those false claims should make us less likely to believe an accuser -- the process should still be the same -- what's the allegation? Is it denied? And ,if so, what's the evidence for the allegation?

[Rum]

The vast majority of sexual abuse takes place within the family. 'Stranger danger' is a sad phenomenon because kids feel unsafe - or rather their parents do - about playing outside. There's no evidence it is any less safe than it has ever been.

As to numbers, which you raise the NSPCC (a child protection charity in the UK) 50,000 children in England were identified as needing protection from abuse in 2016 (https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abu ... tatistics/). There are other stats at the link.

The other point I would make is that only a small percentage of child sexual abuse cases actually ever get to court. I don't know what the percentage is but at a guess from my time working with the issue maybe one in ten if that. I gave evidence in court only four or five times in 14 years. I won't bore you with a long case example - I was just about to - but just to say most cases are resolved either by the perpetrator being arrested, some arrangement being made to remove the perpetrator from the home or vicinity of the child. If that wasn't possible the child would be moved to a close relative's or to foster carers if not. Again - all depending on the severity of what was alleged to have taken place. The most serious case I ever dealt required a small group of social workers because it involved the filming of literally a couple of dozen kids and a family who set up a studio in an attic - I will leave the rest to your imagination. The least serious a sibling getting carried away with play that turned 'sexy' - that sort of thing.

It is a messy and complex business and prone to error and getting things wrong of course. What we did then and what they still do every day is try to do what is best for the kid in question. I won't go into the horrible bureaucracy and management arse protecting that has built up around the whole thing these days.

Bringing it back at least in part to the OP, the point is that if you don't have as a starting point, listening and believing the child then you don't get anywhere. If the child is telling lies, so be it. You try to sort that out too.

[Forty Two]

Well, it's not just children "telling lies." Children are manipulated, and also prone to suggestion. They can be wrong, without lying. I'm a parent, and I am very mindful of child abuse and its existence. I can't fathom it. I find it hard to believe anyone would look at a small child and view it as a sexual object in any way. And, I find it hard to believe people would not have the decency to lay off kids, even if they had bad thoughts about them. That may be why I expect that the rate of such abuse must be very low, because I don't view myself as particularly "good" or outside of the norm of human society, so I expect most other people to act consistently with that. It's why I pretty much have very little fear of crime - most people I meet are honest, good, decent folks, as far as I can tell.

But, that doesn't mean that there aren't bad people out there, doing bad things with kids. It seems there is this sub-section of society which is doing all this kid-abuse stuff, and they can't seem to stop. There is county nearby where there is a very aggressive sheriff, and he has repeated sting operations that nab dozens of men at a clip in underage kid stings, mostly pornography but also guys willing to meet young girls for sex. He's made public announcements repeatedly openly asking "when will you learn?" He says - if you're out there doing this, we will find you, and you will be arrested, very likely. Yet, doctors, teachers, law enforcement officers, etc., as well as druggies and criminal types, get caught up in these things. It's horrible.

So, I'm with you, Rum. I have the same desire to protect kids. It's a tough situation, and most folks in your job did the best they could to do the best they could for the kids without hurting innocent people. I think that is true of law enforcement officers too. Nevertheless, the system must require evidence, and afford due process, too.