Except as you have just shown they were sacked for breaking the law.Originally Posted by Hazir
Yes
No
Except as you have just shown they were sacked for breaking the law.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_egypti...n_hotel_attack I wonder if the continental press is going to whine about this, or if it limits its whining to instances of European elites being accused of sexual crimes.
Hope is the denial of reality
No the continental press is currently occupied with the end of the most famous case in Germany for decades:
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110601-35383.htmlKachelmann case sparks backlash against media
Weatherman Jörg Kachelmann’s acquittal on rape charges has prompted a backlash against the German media, with some politicians demanding journalists police themselves or face stricter regulation.
The calls on Wednesday came as many of the trial's most titillating details – including those about Kachelmann and his accuser’s sex lives – were repeatedly broadcast on TV and described in newspapers.
The chairman of the Bundestag’s legal committee, Siegfried Kauder of the conservative Christian Democratic Union, told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung that this would discourage rape victims to come forward with accusations in the future.
“How does it help rape victims if they can’t trust that statements made to a court behind closed doors won’t later end up in the newspaper?” he told the newspaper.
He proposed stricter laws regulating the reporting of sex crimes by journalists.
Meanwhile, Kachelmann himself launched a blistering attack against journalists on Twitter, describing one publisher as coming “from the slums of German journalism.”
Prosecutors had accused the 52-year-old Swiss citizen and founder of the Meteomedia company of violently raping his former long-time girlfriend in February last year. The woman said he had held a knife to her throat as he attacked her in her apartment in the Rhein-Neckar county.
But the case quickly devolved into a drama played out in newspapers and on TV, full of accusations, counter-accusations and changing accounts of the incident.
The Bavarian Christian Social Union‘s legal expert Norbert Geis told the same paper that the media urgently needed to regulate itself better, calling for a “honour code, by which the industry is duty-bound to report sexual violence trials in a much more restrained manner.”
The principle of open justice, in which the public has full access to legal trials, must not be pushed so hard by commentators “that the people affected are pilloried and pre-judged.”
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/wo.../02france.html
French elites attacking the victim of rape take 2.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, by tresspassing.
Congratulations America
Looks more like a party reacting to a wholesale attack on its leadership.
Congratulations America
If by leadership, you mean an attack on the same individual. By a member of their own party no less. How dare anyone make accusations of something as unimportant as rape if it could lead to political damage. Let's go after the rape victim instead!
Hope is the denial of reality
Was an attempted rape reported? No. Is somebody (more precisely a person complicit in the non-reporting) creating a big stink about that trying to put all the blame on others? Yes.
Congratulations America
Hazir, you don't seem to believe anyone, in any country, regarding rape. Not the victims, the police, or the press. What's up with that?
If your kind of attitude is widespread in France, I could see why a person wouldn't report being raped.
Hope is the denial of reality
And you don't even understand you are defending the person who was material in the cover up happening at all. If you weren't so anti-french you might have actually read about the issue, or even the article you are quoting. This woman urged her daughter not to report anything and now blames the Socialist Party for her own mistakes. Some mother, that; your daughter comes home with a story about an attempted rape and your first instinct is to tell her she shouldn't make it public.
Congratulations America
Would that be because so many people lie about it? This particular (french) bitch let her daughter down in the worst way and now is trying to put the blame for that on others. She's like the mother who looks the other way when her child is being abused. Her attempts to cleanse herself of the blame are laughable.
If that rape attempt indeed happened, she not only let down her daughter, but also gave a predator the chance to make more victims.
Congratulations America
Much of the article is about other parties than the mother trying very hard to make everyone look the other way. We can vilify them all at the same time. The daughter did talk about this eventually, several years ago in fact, but it doesn't look like it got much attention until now.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yeah, the article is mostly about the mother's interviews now, 8 years after the alleged event, when it first broke though the young woman herself made it clear that her mother was actually central to the hush hush that led to a complete cover up. I personally don't quite understand how the story of the daughter only half broke. The name was beeped out in the interview I understand, but there must have been enough people who know whose name was said there. If that is indeed inherent to working with people in power in France there is something quite rotten there. Rape attempt or not, it seems like there was serious reason at least for a sexual harrassment case.
Congratulations America
So, you believe the French woman in France, but not the Guinea woman in NYC. Or the woman in the cop case in NYC. huh?
Yes (as in taking her claim serious), no, and why should I believe her when your court didn't?
Congratulations America
Yes.
No, you don't believe the Guinea woman's claims.....? Not even the Grand Jury saying enough evidence means proceed to trial?
Rape couldn't be proven because of her highly intoxicated state, but the cop himself admitted to what amounts to criminal trespass, a type of assault on a person. Sounds to me like the jury followed their instructions about reasonable doubt, and guilty of Trespass was the proven lesser charge. What's your beef with that?
You said yourself that accusations aren't always proven, and sometimes "guilty" people are acquitted (you used OJ as an example). I'm just saying....you're all over the place with whom you believe or don't. Calling certain women gold-diggers, liars, bitches. But some have serious cause for sexual harassment cases. You're attitudes are confusing to me.
I feel no qualms about calling a mother who when daughter is assaulted sides with her abuser a bitch. It is actually an insult to the female dog, who never would let her young down in such a way.
My beef with the presentation of the nyc cop case is that people think the acquittal really means they did it.
Congratulations America
Has anyone else noticed that in 18 pages, Hazir's recent statement that DSK might well have sexually harassed Ms. Banon is pretty much the only time he's been willing to address DSK's actions? Pretty much all his other posts he's focused exclusively on everyone else. The possible victims, hotel management, the NYC police, mothers, the Party, he'd look ANYWHERE but at Strauss-Kahn. Kinda odd in a thread he started titled "did he or didn't he?"
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Might as well call the thread "should we all bend over whenever DSK is nearby".
Hope is the denial of reality
Glad you noticed, it means I am not unwilling to entertain the fact that he is capable of raping.
Congratulations America
I think that whole NYPD tangent was a concerted attempt at a derailment on your part in the face of steady pressure on how completely insupportable the position you were taking was, so no, I don't really think so.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Me in concert with myself and I? It wasn't really anyway, but it was a little bit of fun I will admit; the way my main opponents reacted show more than anything else how dangerous it is to let the public know the identities of the accused, because no matter what they will never be able to rehabilitate themselves. Even if they are innocent.
Congratulations America
By defending the sacking of criminal cops who commit and are convicted of criminal tresspass while on duty?
Nobody is saying they're rapists.
Ah you want to go back to whether it's normal to fire all cops who make a bad call on whether or not to enter a place?
Congratulations America
And lay next to a naked woman? Seriously?
Hope is the denial of reality
Hazir, that's not what Rand said at all. Go back to where he said, "nobody is saying they're rapists". You're the only one suggesting that.
According to your posts, even when found innocent of rape charges in a US court of law, everyone will still assume they're rapists. Simply because they were charged/accused and went through a trial. A trial open to the public press, showing the identity of the accused. Reputation and career ruined. Therefore, we should close our public courts, and gag our free press.
Hazir, you don't usually troll around, so I'll suggest (again) that you're misunderstanding the legal term Trespass as it's been used in this NYC cop case. It's not like "No Trespassing" signs posted on private property. Trespass is not just entering a home without permission, or being someplace you shouldn't be. It's not a simple misdemeanor like loitering in a private parking lot after business hours. Hate to pull a wiki, but here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrespassTrespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.
Trespass to the person, historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming.[1] Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery";[2] battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it";[2] and false imprisonment, the "unlaw[ful] obstruct[ion] or depriv[ation] of freedom from restraint of movement."[3]
Which was not a charge and clearly not the formal ground for dismissal.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote