If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Not really because you know you'd get the vigilante knuckle draggers giving her a kicking. Then of course, they get arrested and it wastes more money in the courts getting them done for GBH.
It is neither yours, my own or anybody's business who this girl is apart from the taxi driver. It probably wouldn't be safe for her to go out if she were named and although she did a terrible thing, she needs to get on with her life once she has served her sentence.
Let the courts deal with her, not the self-righteous public with little else to do.
Exactly. I wouldn't expect her to just pay it off all at once, that's silly. But she should definatly have to pay. The guy had to go through court to get his license back even though he's been proved to have done nothing wrong, and lost his house because of it. That man is going to have to work to pay off the debt, l i think it was something like £12k. If anyone has to pay it should be HER
The problem was it was like 14 months after she made the claim that the girl said she lied. He was originally cleared because of no evidence but she hadn't admitted she lied so people still thought he was guilty. Hopefully that will change now, but I'm guessing the damage has already been done
Yes, I do believe in the anonymity of criminals as it would be different to otherwise draw the line on who to name and shame. The fact is that it isn't our business anyway, why should we care?
i think it's called empathy?
why should we care about people without water in africa? fuck them eh! none of our business =p
Well the point is that it should be everyone or no-one. I'm not sure I agree with you. I wouldn't for example, be comfortable voting for a politician with a history of race-hate crimes, or hiring a tradesman with a history of conning customers.
That's what is commonly called a reductio ad absurdum(spl?).
There is a difference between people suffering in the present and people who have committed an act in the past. The past cannot be changed, the future can (to what degree in the drought case, I don't know... But do you understand my logic?). *Resists temptation to derail thread*
At the end of the day, it's none of your business if Geoff is just about to be released from prison from hitting Tina a year ago. It doesn't change what he has done and it isn't a part of your life, nor was it ever a result of your actions.
I think that with the case of the politician, her/his racism would reflect through to her/his policies and speeches. Maybe they have reformed... Maybe their experiences have made them adamently anti-racist, or being in prison has really made them change.
Yeah I understand, but people don't want to change the past - they feel for the guy so they want to get a sense of justice by changing the future of the guilty party.
This just goes back to my point, and makes what I said about africans etc relevant again
Arguably, the conditions that a lot of people in the global south are living has a lot to do with our personal actions.
And justice is individual to each person, which is why I disagree with the naming and shaming. It should be dealt with by the law (and I don't doubt there are many shitty judges out there) because it is the only wa it can be dealt with fairly. Note also, how naming and shaming would discriminate based on build, physical strength, gender, sexuality ect. People have their prejudices and are mre likely to jump a skinny gay guy than a twenty stone body builder.
Also you're right about naming and shaming... how people get treated will depend on them as a person - it's just really ironic in this situation that the guy getting shamed is the innocent one, and the one being protected is the guilty one. Then again I guess that both backs up your point and contradicts it; if noone had been named then this would'nt be such a big issue, but its also protecting the girl from going through what the guy had to.
No you shouldn't because by naming and shaming them, people who look like them and have the same name will become targets of vigilante thugs.
It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it's Ok to beat them up, a lot of people are self-righteous enough to actually take that sort of action.
Ans what if they get the wrong guy?
It may... It may not. It may encourage more cases of what we had as the original point of the thread. I don't see why it would encourage survivors of rape and abuse to come forward.
It already does. There are countless cases (according to police) where someone who has been charged with rape is revealed to the public, and other women come forward who wouldn't have done previously (presumably for the same reasons that a lot of women don't come forward in the first place - so few cases end up in a conviction). This is the main argument for the identity of men being revealed immediately after the accusation has been made, rather than once he's actually been convicted, since it often results in a much stronger case against him.
It might encourage more false accusations, which is why the accuser should then be named if it is proven they lied, because that would discourage false accusations.
This is why I'm against it as well.
if he had raped the girl he wouldn't have got two months, and that's the real shocker about this whole thing. its an awful story, it really is, but its not common and its not the norm.
those who claim rape should never be identified, especially not youngsters, but those who are charged should also be anonymous until conviction. the girl has not been named because of laws set up to protect young people, and i really can't believe that people want that changed.
What are you on about son? There are countless threads about the harsh reality of rape on this site.
Can't you see the link between the two issues?
We are outraged that this girl gets away with lying, or indeed lies in the first place, because it makes it harder to get convictions or to encourage women to come forward in the first place.
I absolutely agree, If there was a harsher punishment for such lies maybe it would make girls think twice about making a mockery of something which is a horrific experience that many women are unfortunate enough to have to go through.
A question that no one here made: It says she did think he had raped her at first. What could have made her do that? As far as I know, if you get so stupidly drunk you just have no memories, not false ones.
There's some sort of law over here about naming people under 18. (I think)
Indrid - even if she was older, she still wouldn't have been named. Under the Sexual Offences Act, the claimant in a sex offence case has the right to anonymity in his or her lifetime, even if he or she is found to be lying or the allegations are incorrect.