[Helenaka]

Originally Posted by GODDESS

I think it's so wrong that the 'victim' has her identity potected and her alleged attackers have their names splashed everywhere.

Tweed is a total arse but if this goes to court how can he get a fair trial given all his recent publicity?

Its not wrong at all.

It would be horrific to be raped and then to be named as well! So that everyone could know and talk about you.

Way to put people off reporting being raped.

They are the victim, they should never be named, unless they choose to waive their anonymity or they falsely accuse someone of rape.

It's called victimin's rights. I can't understand your line of thinking at all.

If it comes to trial the judge will direct the jury to make a decision based on the facts of the case. As it should be.

[Rose Petals]

Originally Posted by Helenaka

Its not wrong at all.

It would be horrific to be raped and then to be named as well! So that everyone could know and talk about you.

Way to put people off reporting being raped.

They are the victim, they should never be named, unless they choose to waive their anonymity or they falsely accuse someone of rape.

It's called victimin's rights. I can't understand your line of thinking at all.

If it comes to trial the judge will direct the jury to make a decision based on the facts of the case. As it should be.

I think maybe that person was saying much the same as I did that surely the accused deserve to have their identities protected aswell, after all - innocent until proven otherwise ?

[GODDESS]

Yes it is wrong

Mud sticks and all identities should be potected unless a conviction is made.

[Helenaka]

Originally Posted by Viridiana

And since when rapists are people that no one wants to have sex with? That's a new theory.

If you see, I re-read and added an extra bit to my OP.

I didn't mean that like it came out.

What I meant was I thought he had lots of willing bed fellows, if we follow what the media has been saying.

But of course I acknowledge that having loads of bimbo's around him, does not automatically make him innocent...which is why I re-read my post and added to that prior to even reading your response. As I realised that it may come across as supporting him, which I don't at all.

I am going to wait and see what happens with this case before I make my mind up.

And as I said before, if he is guilty he needs locking up for a long time. I just don't want to condemn him until the GP know more of the details.

[Viridiana]

Originally Posted by Monkeylalala

No, I wasn't saying that. I was just pointing out that even at nineteen you would know that if a strange bloke in a nightclub asks you back to his place it's not to play monopoly.

If you leave a club with a bloke and go back to his place their is usually at least a tacit acknowledgement on both sides exactly what the reason for this is. Obviously even after that either party has the right to back out at any point if they wish but it does make me slightly suspect that this may be a case where the girls done something and regretted it afterwards.

I don't know that for sure, it's just a possibility and the fact she went back with them willingly makes it seem a bit more likely.

But what you are saying makes no sense at all. She could have decided to go to their houses, she even could have decided that in fact she wanted to have sex with one of them, but at the last minute things may have turned nasty and she could have changed her opinion. It still rape. It makes no difference if a strange man pounced on her on the street or if she Knew him, no is still no, it doesn't matter how you got to that situation.

[symoneh]

To be honest it was only a matter of time before something like this came up.

He's chased around by young impressionable girls who are desparate for any whiff of fame, even it comes from a mans' dead wife. She's probably some kid who got blinded by the lights and just fancied a kiss and cuddle and something to tell her mates. Him and his friends have been having girls and sex parties back his new place for some time now, and when she got back there its probably what he expected of her.
Either way, the blokes' an idiot.

[Helenaka]

Originally Posted by Rose Petals

I think maybe that person was saying much the same as I did that surely the accused deserve to have their identities protected aswell, after all - innocent until proven otherwise ?

I hear what you are saying RP and Goddess.

Thanks for explaining it more RP and Goddess, sorry for snapping, I now see what you mean.


It is difficult, because I very much support the innocent until proved guilty school of thought and I do accept that it is harsh that names are given prior to the verdict.

However, I think it would need a massive overhaul of how the media publicise the criminal justice courts.

But giving names does have its good side don't forget, in say cases such as serial rapists whereby the victim has been too scared/embarrassed/etc to report the attack, they have then seen the accused name or photo in the papers and it has led them to come forward and report those additional crimes and the person quite rightly is charged and receives a longer sentence than for just the one he/she was originally on trial for.

I can't see why, taking in to account of what I have just written that the accused should not receive publicity prior to their trial.

Perhaps the answer lies in educating people that whilst people are found guilty they are also found not guilty and that they should not be treated with prejudice afterwards.

Logic, I know and in an ideal world perhaps it could happen, but then we are always going to have the no smoke without fire camp.

Its difficult, but I can't really see how to resolve the issue fairly at the moment.

[therightdeal]

People are right it was only a matter of time. The way he went about his business with women after her death brewed up a storm.

[Mindbear]

I think what people are also forgetting here is that it has to be proved 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Which means that whilst it there could be quite a lot of evidence saying that it did happen, if a tiny little bit of doubt is there, they will get let off with the crime, regardless.

The girl will have been told this when she went to the police, and was willing to go ahead. I don't want to judge him either way, as I wasn't there in a room. However I do judge his past behavior, which was that of a revolting toad.

[Monkeylalala]

Originally Posted by queenofthenile

There is also the "tacit" acknowledgement that if a woman is raped, the bloke will be arrested, spend some time in the cells and then maybe charged and tried in court and sent to prison. Maybe Jack (if he is guilty) should have thought about that.

Actually no. Any woman with two brain cells knows that in the case of date rape it is extremely unlikely that any convicition will be made. And they also know that the kind of men who do this know that and take full advantage of it....so, don't put yourself in a situation where it can happen in the first place.

I'm not saying that it was okay to attack her because she went home with him. Either she went home with him knowing full well what was going to happen or she was extremely naive. Neither means she deserves to get attacked but unfortunately it does mean it's extremely unlikely, it she was attacked, that it will result in any conviction.

And that's not my fault, that's just how juries react. So distasteful as it if you do go home with a stranger you should bear in mind that it's extremely likely members of a jury will view that as consent. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happens...

[Monkeylalala]

Originally Posted by LittleChicken

Because she consented to go back to the flat still doesn't give them the right to assault her.....

Which I've already said several times, read the damn post.

"either party has the right to back out at any point if they wish"

[Omah]

Originally Posted by soapmania

Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...teen-home.html

That looks like Goody's Bentley in the driveway .....

[DollyDumpling]

Originally Posted by Rose Petals

Possibly but whatever, I really think they need to keep the accused's name/s out of the papers. The accuser is afforded anonymity, so why not the accused? In some cases when women cry rape or sexual assault, it's not even true, and then the man gets his name dragged through the mud. Until and unless the accused is found guilty, they deserve to have their names kept out of the media.

You've said it much better than I could.

This is all wrong.

[Monkeylalala]

Originally Posted by Viridiana

I bet his line of defense will be that he's grieving and some people in this forum will believe him.

I'm shocked with the "tacit agreement" comment. Simply disgusting.

I did not say it was "tacit agreement" I said if you leave a club with a strange man and go back to his house there is a "tacit acknowledgement" of why you're going.

If any of your friends left a club with a bloke to go back to his place what would you think they were going to do? Fix his fridge? Help him with his homework? Obviously nobody deserves to be attacked and everybody has a right to decide how far they go and with whom, but if you left a club with a strange bloke without knowing exactly why he was asking you back to his place you would have to be a complete moron.

I can't believe some are suggesting this woman cried rape! they say its a very serious sexual assault. Which means it must have been violent. The wording indicates it.

I'd wait until the trial before discussion if you think it is a made up claim or not because it sounds much more serious than the Ben Freeman case for example.

[Monkeylalala]

Originally Posted by Who's That Girl

I can't believe some are suggesting this woman cried rape! they say its a very serious sexual assault. Which means it must have been violent. The wording indicates it.

I'd wait until the trial before discussion if you think it is a made up claim or not because it sounds much more serious than the Ben Freeman case for example.

It doesn't indicate anything of the sort, you're just speculating. This is exactly the reason why both parties should remain anonymous.

You've acted as judge and jury already and it was probably only reported a few hours ago.

[fredster]

Originally Posted by GODDESS

As much as I loathe Tweed, I can't help but agree with you.

The 'victim' will probably be turn out to be some Wannabe glamour girl on the make.

That is a pretty nasty thing to say about someone you know nothing about. The police are obviously taking it seriously. As much as jack is innocent until found guilty, so is his victim.

Originally Posted by Monkeylalala

It doesn't indicate anything of the sort, you're just speculating. This is exactly the reason why both parties should remain anonymous.

You've acted as judge and jury already and it was probably only reported a few hours ago.

I haven't acted like a judge and jury at all. I have gone off the wording used by the police and they said 'serious sexual assault' when its used in that context it usually means violent. They are the terms.

Other than that I said wait until the trial. And yep I agree. Staying anonymous is something I have always supported.

[Monkeylalala]

Originally Posted by Who's That Girl

I haven't acted like a judge and jury at all. I have gone off the wording used by the police and they said 'serious sexual assault' when its used in that context it usually means violent. They are the terms.

Other than that I said wait until the trial. And yep I agree. Staying anonymous is something I have always supported.

Well, you said you couldn't believe people were saying she was crying rape (which implies you think it must be true).

And "serious sexual assault" doesn't necessarily refer to the level of violence used, often it can refer to the actual acts involved if you get my drift, some are viewed as 'more serious' than others. Eg grabbing someones breast or bottom could be classed as sexual assault but 'less serious', I'll leave it to your imagination what the more 'serious' acts are.

[Woody_Enfield]

He can sexually assault me anytime he likes

[RacerWelsh]

There is no smoke without fire.

and he finally got burned.

the dimwit widow has been caught out either way......

[Simi89]

Originally Posted by hallam

His defence will say he was in Madagascar at the time.

I love that

[fredster]

Originally Posted by Simi89

I love that

I would not put it past him. He will employ some big shot Barrister and worm his way out of trouble, probably blame it on his mate.

[GODDESS]

Originally Posted by fredster

That is a pretty nasty thing to say about someone you know nothing about. The police are obviously taking it seriously. As much as jack is innocent until found guilty, so is his victim.

The police have a duty to investigate any allegation from this woman. It is up to the CPS to determine if there is enough evidence for this to go to court.

No self-respecting woman would go near Jack Tweed.

A few weeks ago three women were pictured leaving Tweeds house. A couple of days later these same women were in the NOTW decribing how they were treated like peices of meat and were passed around by Tweed and his friends.

These women were so traumtised by their ordeal that they had to pose half naked for the tabloids to tell the world how despicable Tweed is.

And yet there are still women who will go home with Jack Tweed.

[cyrilsneer]

Originally Posted by Monkeylalala

And "serious sexual assault" doesn't necessarily refer to the level of violence used, often it can refer to the actual acts involved if you get my drift, some are viewed as 'more serious' than others. Eg grabbing someones breast or bottom could be classed as sexual assault but 'less serious', I'll leave it to your imagination what the more 'serious' acts are.

But two people have arrested and there are suggestions (if true) it is being referred to a specialist unit ... which would shoot down this being a consensual fan after fame. It's entirely possible this could be a multiple rape ordeal or something violent which would make it more serious.