Well...
From The Herald:
The three men acquitted of the rape of Louise Nicholas face another trial this year in relation to alleged sexual offending against another woman.I've known about this for a while. I'm immensely relieved that the charges are still going ahead.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clinton John Tukotahi Rickards and former police officers Bradley Keith Shipton and Robert Francis Schollum are alleged to have committed the crimes during the 1980s.
I'll have more to say tomorrow, but right now I just want to say that that I believe Louise Nicholas, and every other woman who says she was raped by these men. I believe that Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Rickards are rapists. I believe they systematically abused their power while they were in the police force, and I don't think they're alone.
I also want to pay tribute to the woman who brought this complaint. Louise Nicholas was put on trial in court, and in the media. I am awed by the strength of someone who saw what Lousie Nicholas went through, and was still prepared to keep fighting. I hope she gets justice.
I'm bowled over with admiration for this woman. I was so dismayed after the last trial that women who'd been raped would see what Louise Nicholas went through and decide not to report it. But let's hope there's some justice this time around.
ReplyDeleteThat's "hearsay" seans.
ReplyDeleteIt's been pointed out already on other blogs, and probably on this one too - the fact that someone is acquitted of a charge means only that the prosecution couldn't present sufficient evidence to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt". What it does not mean is that the accused has been proved innocent. Our personal opinion is not subject to the rules of evidence a jury has to operate under. The rest of us are free to know a rapist when we see one, and to feel regret/anger/disbelief/you-name-it that a rape victim's voluntary sex life can be fair game for a defence lawyer in such a case.
Here's a question for you, seans (and for Stevethepirate too, come to that): is it rape for a policeman to abuse his position of authority and force/intimidate a young woman into group sex with him and his mates? I'll give you a hint - the answer is "Yes."
Sure fmragtops, we have to accept the possibility that Louise Nicholas has spent decades pursuing the case and suffered the most intense public scrutiny and humiliation imaginable, in order to save herself the embarrassment of admitting she had sex with some cops. Er, hang on, no we don't! Because the idea is just plain stupid!
ReplyDeletePlainly this bears repeating, so here it is again: is it rape for a policeman to abuse his position of authority and force/intimidate a young woman into group sex with him and his mates? I'll give you a hint - the answer is "Yes."
Steve the pirate I'm pretty sure I've asked you not to post here. If I haven't then please don't.
ReplyDeleteFor everyone else I'll remind you that I will delete your comments if they contain suppressed information, if they disbelieve or insult rape survivors, or if they annoy me.
Sure, fmragtops, it's not clearly yes - if you're the kind of person who thinks fucking someone else against their will isn't necessarily rape. But that's such a fucked-in-the-head position that I don't feel any great requirement to argue against it.
ReplyDeleteI draw your attention to a point I made earlier: a jury must consider whether a case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to meet the legal definition of rape, but our personal opinion is subject to no such rules. How do I know a rapist when I see one? In this case, I know three rapists when I see them because they have basically admitted the facts of the case, and the various weaseling-out attempts on the part of their defence lawyers may have got them past that "beyond reasonable doubt" post for the jury, but not for my personal opinion.
I've clogged Maia's thread up enough. If fmragtops wants to fail to understand the difference between a jury trial and a personal opinion further, I've posted on this subject over at Sir Humphreys.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. Why is it that when the topic of rape comes up, there are always a bunch of men on hand to give women helpful advice about what they should do about it? Why can't they even *say* the word "rape" without bringing up some dickhead hearsay anecdote their neighbour's aunt's friend's nephew's granny's son's colleague's cat's vet told them about some woman who made up a false rape accusation? Gack.
ReplyDelete(PS, I should mention, I don't include Psycho Milt in the group of men who annoy me. Milt - thanks for getting it about rape and about the Rickards-Schollum-Shipton trial. Really.)
fmragtops - your neocon comment makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of your argument is appalling. Laying a false complaint is not the same crime as raping someone, so equal protection under the law is nonsense.
I hope you don't have access to a gun. Please don't post on my blog anymore, I will delete future posts.
Maia to fmragtops: "I hope you don't have access to a gun."
ReplyDeletefmragtops on Maia, over at Capitalism Great: "It appears to me that this woman needs a bullet in her head."
Remarkably prescient, Maia. Another responsible gun owner demonstrates why gun control is just wrong...