Is anyone else puzzled at how Dom Cummings can claim to have documentation of all his allegations?
If I'd retained paperwork or stuff on a computer relating to a previous employment I've a feeling my former bosses would've had my guts for garters.
Do you get the feeling though that before he was fired he was probably saying 'you can't fire me I have documentary evidence of everything'? At some point the balance must have tipped that it was better to live with the scandal than put up with whatever he was doing to stay in his role. He's been asked multiple times why he didn't resign his post in protest of various disagreements and I'm sure his massive salary for little actual work had nothing to do with it.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
This is something that is worrying me too. Whilst men have undoubtedly abused their power over the years, there now seems to be a kind of "all men are guilty " movement and men are removed from their work , as soon as an allegation is made' long before any guilt is proven. Even if the allegations are subsequently dismissed, it is often impossible for these men to return to their work.
totally agree. Those who allege the misdemeanors have anonymity but the alleged perpetrators are "named and shamed" Why can't everyone be anonymous until someone is found guilty?. When a someone is wrongy accused and acquitted surely it's not unreasonable to name and shame to person who made the false allegation?
Hasn't the argument been that the alleged perpetrators are named to encourage other victims to come forward? Seems a bit wrong as it (the argument) assumes that the person is guilty.
Hasn't the argument been that the alleged perpetrators are named to encourage other victims to come forward? Seems a bit wrong as it (the argument) assumes that the person is guilty.
and that the accuser is honest?
Once someone is found guilty, sure, name them and other victims can come forward. I think half the male cast of Coronation St have been suspended at some time yet none of them have been convicted
'Famous' American chat show host who has been accused of bully staff over many years and finally has had her show chopped in the USA, although she claims it was her choice and she was retiring anyway.
This is something that is worrying me too. Whilst men have undoubtedly abused their power over the years, there now seems to be a kind of "all men are guilty " movement and men are removed from their work , as soon as an allegation is made' long before any guilt is proven. Even if the allegations are subsequently dismissed, it is often impossible for these men to return to their work.
If the accused is found not guilty it can be because they were innocent or because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That could be down to a borderline judicial decision.
Whatever the case if they name the victim after an acquittal you could be naming a real victim or a false accuser. In the balance of things would you want to risk naming a victim on the basis of a bad performance by the prosecution or other random cause for the case to fail?
Right now 1 in 60 rapes in this country go to trial. In India they convict 1 in 25. Basically India gets over twice the successful convictions than the UK even gets into court.
If you think the system is unbalanced against innocent people then you're right. The innocents are the victims being failed by a system that isn't fit for purpose when it comes to sexual or violent crime.
I agree with you @NorthernJoe, but the way to secure more convictions of those men guilty of sexual crimes, is not to publicly try more innocent men. Guilt should be determined in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
Right now 1 in 60 rapes in this country go to trial. In India they convict 1 in 25. Basically India gets over twice the successful convictions than the UK even gets into court.
In India an estimated 50 -70% of rape cases don't get reported even with their more lax rape laws. Statistics don't mean much sadly.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
Right now 1 in 60 rapes in this country go to trial. In India they convict 1 in 25. Basically India gets over twice the successful convictions than the UK even gets into court.
In India an estimated 50 -70% of rape cases don't get reported even with their more lax rape laws. Statistics don't mean much sadly.
Having spent 2 years of my life in India, I conclude their judicial / police system is so corrupt it is certainly not to be held up as any sort of example
Posts
Do you get the feeling though that before he was fired he was probably saying 'you can't fire me I have documentary evidence of everything'? At some point the balance must have tipped that it was better to live with the scandal than put up with whatever he was doing to stay in his role. He's been asked multiple times why he didn't resign his post in protest of various disagreements and I'm sure his massive salary for little actual work had nothing to do with it.
When a someone is wrongy accused and acquitted surely it's not unreasonable to name and shame to person who made the false allegation?
Once someone is found guilty, sure, name them and other victims can come forward.
I think half the male cast of Coronation St have been suspended at some time yet none of them have been convicted
'Famous' American chat show host who has been accused of bully staff over many years and finally has had her show chopped in the USA, although she claims it was her choice and she was retiring anyway.
I agree on all counts there punkdoc.
Whatever the case if they name the victim after an acquittal you could be naming a real victim or a false accuser. In the balance of things would you want to risk naming a victim on the basis of a bad performance by the prosecution or other random cause for the case to fail?
Right now 1 in 60 rapes in this country go to trial. In India they convict 1 in 25. Basically India gets over twice the successful convictions than the UK even gets into court.
If you think the system is unbalanced against innocent people then you're right. The innocents are the victims being failed by a system that isn't fit for purpose when it comes to sexual or violent crime.
Guilt should be determined in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border