HO: Irresponsible Choices (JP-related...)
Winchester_
Posts: 135 Forum Member
✭
Really, JP? Withhold the name of your attacker? Fail to provide DNA evidence and hamper the investigation? Now, no justice will be served by putting that vile child behind bars.:o
0
Comments
Now, that I think about it, John Paul has always been one to bask in his own suffering. He allowed Frankie's son to emotionally abuse him for ages and chose him over two men who put him first (Spike/Father Kieron), so I suppose this is par for the course for JP.
He was obviously in shock and, unfortunately it's realistic, just wanted to go home and try to forget about it.
Yes it was, James is a brilliant actor you could sense everything jp was feeling
Yeh, James didn't need words to tell the viewers exactly what JP was feeling. It was incredible acting.
I think he was ashamed that basically a young boy raped him, but yeah too bad he wasn't more forthcoming. At least he went to the police right away, but I think they want to lengthen the storyline.
Whilst of course full disclosure is the sensible thing to do, what victims are constantly advised to do, it won't be that easy in practise. You could see he was she'll shocked and as gentle as they are, the questioning and physical examination can seem like another assault and also there is the knowledge that a process is starting that will go on for minths, maybe years with court appearances, plus he has it affecting his career as it was a student.
I can understand why someone would just want to go home, get 'clean' and try and put it behind them. Indeed I have friends that have been raped that have done just that.
People were convicted of crimes before DNA evidence was available. Very rarely will the police ever have a smoking gun where there isn't any doubt who committed a crime. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt. The problem is people are requiring more to convict.
Really, victim blaming? Is that not also irresponsible?
I suspect that there won't be concrete evidence and it will be circumstantial. Dirk saying Finn and Robbie were acting suspiciously and we're on sight to get the statue, Finn having burnt his clothes (how is he going to explain that to Diane), Robbie thinking his attitude changed but nothing to prove it beyond doubt. $
That way they can keep the village split on it with some people believing Finn and others John Paul.
One thought though - is there no CCTV at schools these days? At the entrance if not the actual class rooms.
Yeh you're probably right about the swabs. Someone's probably going to catch Finn looking for a uniform in the lost property, and the thing with Dirk seeing them and maybe the possible traces of dna might be evidence (not sure it will be enough). It will be interesting to see how its revealed.
I think there's cctv outside the school, not sure if there's any inside the school.
If Finn did ejaculate in him, there might have been semen traces, that should be enough evidence!
That intercourse had taken place - not that it was non consensual.
However, I think he left before the swab could be taken. There is also a chance (though i'd say it is a small one) that he withdraw prior to that point. Penetration doesn't have to equal ejaculation as you intimated.
The CCTV outside the school might at least place Finn there at the time - it would have him following John-Paul in leaving Dirk and Robbie outside. Also, it would show him returning later that night but it is al circumstantial.
Nope. The woman who was examining him said "That's the first swab done" so I would wager that's a Chekov's Gun and it ends up being significant somewhere down the line. As you rightly pointed out though, whether it conclusively proves rape (along with the rest of the examination that they managed to do) will remain to be seen. It could be what leads to Finn finally getting caught or it could be something that stirs up debate within the village about whether it was consensual or not, like with Jacqui and Gilly.
The fundamental problem with this plot is that this is a soap. The producers want to inform the audience about an important topic but they also want to stretch it out as long as possible. This means that the evidence is going to disappear (eg the boys getting rid of the statuette) and Nana washing his clothes. JP having slept on it probably wants to cooperate fully. Now it looks like he will go straight back into school the next day and have to face his attacker. I find that very hard to believe.
Another problem is the timeslot. I have already read a post from a dad who had to explain to a 12 year old what male rape is. Many kids nowadays are sexually active and aware but many are not. Regardless of who people think should be watching we all know that even the watershed doesn't work in the digital age: if someone wants to watch they will. That doesn't mean the producers can go into great details.
I just think that this is the wrong format to address such a difficult subject with the need to entertain and inform while not upsetting young kids.
I think that was symbolic. He noticed that his shoe lace wasn't done up and had to put that right. I think it was symbolising that he felt so out of control but he could fix his shoelace and put that back the way it should be. Hope that makes sense.
Yeh it does
I agree. I always knew James would not struggle with what is needed for such a storyline because he is great at portraying emotion - whether that be crying or the pain he was going through in his head that we saw last night.