Taxi driver saved from false rape claim by iphone app

123457»

Comments

  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In Scotland we're moving in exactly the opposite direction; at present the law requires corroboration, but the Scottish Government plan to scrap that. They have indicated that as a safeguard they might also require more than a simple majority of the jury to convict, though.

    You wonder what more they could want? Even if the rape survivor is injured its easily dismissed by the perpetrator saying she liked it rough. The woeful conviction rates for reported rapes already demonstrates its hard enough to get a conviction.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    Doesn't it seem rather paradoxical that you might have the situation where, theoretically, somebody can cry a bit in court, make a sad face and get somebody wrongfully convicted of rape while at the same time genuine rapists are escaping conviction due to lack of evidence?

    I can't really see how both those situations can co-exist side by side.

    Exactly, its why justice and rape is such a contentious issue.....only two people are usually present and unless the woman is badly injured evidence is open to interpretation and easily dismissed......every proven false allegation along with disproportionate media reporting (I say disproportionate when measured against the reporting of genuine rapes) reduces a genuine rape victims chances of achieving justice. How is it possible to have a court system which balances the need encourage women who have been raped to use it.....against the need to ensure that convictions are sound.

    I didn't report my rape because I just could face further trauma....and sadly the women who do as I did feed the belief that raping someone is unlikely to lead to a conviction....which encourages rape.
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    The victim echoed what the judge said

    link

    That does not say the Judge said that "the app saved him."
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That does not say the Judge said that "the app saved him."
    Sentencing her at Nottingham crown court, judge Michael Stokes said: ‘Had he not recorded the conversation which demonstrated nothing untoward had occurred, he would probably still be in custody awaiting trial.’

    Seems pretty clear to me
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Seems pretty clear to me

    No it isn't. It does not say the Judge said, "the app saved him."
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If it hadn't been the app, it would have been his CCTV (if it had been working).
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No it isn't. It does not say the Judge said, "the app saved him."

    Since he had no other way to record the trip I think it is fair to say it was the app that saved him. There was nothing else in the cab that could have!
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Since he had no other way to record the trip I think it is fair to say it was the app that saved him. There was nothing else in the cab that could have!

    The poster was caught out in an error and can't bear to admit he was wrong, so has tried to turn it into a ridiculous semantics argument :D
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    The poster was caught out in an error and can't bear to admit he was wrong, so has tried to turn it into a ridiculous semantics argument :D

    Such is Digital Spy :D
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    The poster was caught out in an error and can't bear to admit he was wrong, so has tried to turn it into a ridiculous semantics argument :D

    The implication was that the Judge had gone beyond what could be reasonably said in summing up, stating that he said that he app had "saved" the victim. If anyone here can't admit they are wrong it is you and Grimtales1.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    Doesn't it seem rather paradoxical that you might have the situation where, theoretically, somebody can cry a bit in court, make a sad face and get somebody wrongfully convicted of rape while at the same time genuine rapists are escaping conviction due to lack of evidence?

    I can't really see how both those situations can co-exist side by side.

    Genuine victims of rape are often too ashamed or traumatised to come across well in court. They will often find it very difficult to talk about the incident or stand up for themselves against a lawyer who is accusing them of all sorts of things and trying to blame them for being the victim of a crime. So no, it's not really a surprise that the fakers have success in court when the genuine ones don't.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The implication was that the Judge had gone beyond what could be reasonably said in summing up, stating that he said that he app had "saved" the victim. If anyone here can't admit they are wrong it is you and Grimtales1.

    Oh give it up, it's too farcical to laugh it ~ we know what you meant originally and you were caught out clean.

    Carry on trying to convince if you want, but it's a total epic fail mate :D:D:D
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    Oh give it up, it's too farcical to laugh it ~ we know what you meant originally and you were caught out clean.

    Carry on trying to convince if you want, but it's a total epic fail mate :D:D:D

    You can ramble on as much as you like, it won't change the fact that don't bother to read the posts that you rant on about.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grimtales1 wrote: »
    Is it saying he wouldnt have used the app if his CCTV had been working? Or would have used them both?
    I cant believe the judge said he was saved by the app though. Her word against his but absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Its implying if he didnt have the app he would have been sent down :(
    Disgusting :(
    The Judge did not say that he was saved by the app, the victim said he was saved by the app.
    You can ramble on as much as you like, it won't change the fact that don't bother to read the posts that you rant on about.

    So you disagreed with grimtales 1 purely to point out the difference between the judge saying this:-
    Sentencing her at Nottingham crown court, judge Michael Stokes said: ‘Had he not recorded the conversation which demonstrated nothing untoward had occurred, he would probably still be in custody awaiting trial.

    As opposed to him specifically using the term "saved by the app" ? (when the net effect of either statement is exactly the same)

    Well if that's really the case, it's taking pedantry to a whole new level. Still, if that's how you want to be perceived, don't let me stop you :)
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    So you disagreed with grimtales 1 purely to point out the difference between the judge saying this:-



    As opposed to him specifically using the term "saved by the app" ? (when the net effect of either statement is exactly the same)

    Well if that's really the case, it's taking pedantry to a whole new level. Still, if that's how you want to be perceived, don't let me stop you :)

    And you have completely missed the point.

    Grimtales1 was implying that the Judge overstepped his summing-up, by saying that Mohammed Asif had been "saved" by the app, when the Judge did not say that all, but Mohammed Asif was the one who had said it. Yet you have strung out this pointless debate, for nearly an entire page, just to cover up the fact that either misread, or didn’t read, someone’s post.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And you have completely missed the point.

    Grimtales1 was implying that the Judge overstepped his summing-up, by saying that Mohammed Asif had been "saved" by the app, when the Judge did not say that all, but Mohammed Asif was the one who had said it. Yet you have strung out this pointless debate, for nearly an entire page, just to cover up the fact that either misread, or didn’t read, someone’s post.

    What Mr Asif said, and what the judge said about his continued detention in custody, had the recording not been made, amounted, qualititively, to exactly the same thing. Only the wording was different.

    You're the one who is making an issue of the matter. If you'd wanted to say you were merely being pedantic, you could have cleared it up in your first reply to me. But instead you continue with a totally pointless argument.
Sign In or Register to comment.