Forum » Loža » Velika Britanija: žrtve posilstev bodo morale policiji predati mobilne telefone
Velika Britanija: žrtve posilstev bodo morale policiji predati mobilne telefone
eric_cartman ::
Prejle sem na 24ur prebral omenjeno temo spodaj.. Sedaj pa mi neka stvar ni jasna.. Kako pa se ti lahko dokaže nekaj takega, brez da bi se pregledalo čisto vse morebitne dokaze tako na strani žrtve kot na strani osumljenega?
Absolutno podpiram, da se kaznuje nekoga, ČE JE KRIV. Vendar če ne morejo pregledati čisto vseh dokazov, kako te potem lahko nekaj obtožijo?
Verjetno se kakšne takšne prijave lahko zgodijo tudi iz maščevanja, ljubosumja, jeze etc. Skratka tale novica se mi je zdela absurdna samo v tem smislu, ker bi si vsak mislil, da je normalno, da pregledajo celotno dokazno gradivo.
Kakšen je zakon pri nas oz. kako je to urejeno pri nas?
Argument proti temu v Angliji je ta, da bi se žrtve težje odločale za prijavo. Do neke mere to lahko razumem.. Samo..Spet.. Kako nekoga obtožiš brez dokazov?
Še posebej pri posilstvih je to težko, ker poleg ni po navadi nikakršnih prič.
Vir:
https://www.24ur.com/novice/svet/velika...
Absolutno podpiram, da se kaznuje nekoga, ČE JE KRIV. Vendar če ne morejo pregledati čisto vseh dokazov, kako te potem lahko nekaj obtožijo?
Verjetno se kakšne takšne prijave lahko zgodijo tudi iz maščevanja, ljubosumja, jeze etc. Skratka tale novica se mi je zdela absurdna samo v tem smislu, ker bi si vsak mislil, da je normalno, da pregledajo celotno dokazno gradivo.
Kakšen je zakon pri nas oz. kako je to urejeno pri nas?
Argument proti temu v Angliji je ta, da bi se žrtve težje odločale za prijavo. Do neke mere to lahko razumem.. Samo..Spet.. Kako nekoga obtožiš brez dokazov?
Še posebej pri posilstvih je to težko, ker poleg ni po navadi nikakršnih prič.
Vir:
https://www.24ur.com/novice/svet/velika...
FireSnake ::
Ne dajat povezav do 24kurne gnojnice, no.
Poglej in se nasmej: vicmaher.si
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: FireSnake ()
vostok_1 ::
Če imam na izbiro patriarhat, ali tvojo ideologijo. Zberem patriarhat hands down.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
nsa_ag3nt ::
Še samo malo in bodo imeli čisto šarijo v UK.
Tam se vsem slabo piše.
Potem bereš bbc članek, kjer piše, da so imeli policaji telefon žrtve v predalu 2 leti ugasnjen.
Tam se vsem slabo piše.
Potem bereš bbc članek, kjer piše, da so imeli policaji telefon žrtve v predalu 2 leti ugasnjen.
https://gizmodo.com/c/goodbye-big-five
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: nsa_ag3nt ()
FormerUser ::
No sh*t? Šovinisti bi raje izbrali patriarhat kot egalitarnost? Kaj takšnega.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- predlagalo izbris: Stari maček ()
vostok_1 ::
FormerUser je izjavil:
No sh*t? Šovinisti bi raje izbrali patriarhat kot egalitarnost? Kaj takšnega.
Tebe ne zanima egalitarnost.
Tebe zgolj zanima kako se maščevat moškim.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
FormerUser ::
@eric cartman
Sprenevedanje. Vse kar policija najde, mora predati naprej odvetniku posiljevalca, ki bo tako imel na razpolago še več materiala za diskreditacijo žrtve, stvari, ki nimajo nobene veze s samim posilstvom.
@vostok
Bull.
Sprenevedanje. Vse kar policija najde, mora predati naprej odvetniku posiljevalca, ki bo tako imel na razpolago še več materiala za diskreditacijo žrtve, stvari, ki nimajo nobene veze s samim posilstvom.
@vostok
Bull.
eric_cartman ::
ki nimajo nobene veze s samim posilstvom.
Kako veš, da se je res zgodilo? Ker "žrtev" tako pravi?
In zakaj ga imenuješ posiljevalec, če mu to dejanje ni dokazano?
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: eric_cartman ()
Raptor F16 ::
Pravilno bi bilo, da se dokazi objektivno zbirajo na obeh straneh.
Če gre zadeva na sodišče bi moralo toženi (ki ugovarja) in tožeči stranki biti v interesu, da se stvar razčisti če sta prepričani v svoja stališča.
Če gre zadeva na sodišče bi moralo toženi (ki ugovarja) in tožeči stranki biti v interesu, da se stvar razčisti če sta prepričani v svoja stališča.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenil: Raptor F16 ()
xmetallic ::
eric_cartman je izjavil:
Kakšen je zakon pri nas oz. kako je to urejeno pri nas?
Zakon je povsod na zahodu enak. Innocent until proven guilty. Presumption of innocence je zagotovljena po ustavi in konvenciji o človekovih pravicah. Lahko se feminaziji na trepalnice postavijo vendar sodišča ne bodo nikogar poslala za zapahe zgolj na podlagi prijave. Jokcanje ni dokaz, štejejo samo neizpodbitni dokazi, ki temeljijo na znanosti.
Raptor F16 je izjavil:
Pravilno bi bilo, da se dokazi objektivno zbirajo na obeh straneh.
Tako delujejo sodišča že desetletja. Vendar bi feminaziji radi, da se ljudi pošilja v zapor na podlagi (lažnega) pričanja, brez dokazov.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: xmetallic ()
FormerUser ::
eric_cartman je izjavil:
ki nimajo nobene veze s samim posilstvom.
Kako veš, da se je res zgodilo? Ker "žrtev" tako pravi?
Ker žrtve praviloma ne lažejo, jim je verjeti edino racionalno stališče. So pa seveda potrebni še drugi dokazi, ki pa se redko nahajajo na telefonih žrtve.
eric_cartman je izjavil:
In zakaj ga imenuješ posiljevalec, če mu to dejanje ni dokazano?
Because freedom of speech, saj ga še vedno zagovarjate, kajne, ali samo takrat ko vam ustreza.
xmetallic ::
FormerUser je izjavil:
Ker žrtve praviloma ne lažejo, jim je verjeti edino racionalno stališče. So pa seveda potrebni še drugi dokazi, ki pa se redko nahajajo na telefonih žrtve.
V primerih ko "žrtev" laže, in teh je cca. 9%, bomo po krivem obtoženim rekli kolateralna škoda. /s
Edino racionalno je verjetni znanosti.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: xmetallic ()
vostok_1 ::
FormerUser je izjavil:
eric_cartman je izjavil:
ki nimajo nobene veze s samim posilstvom.
Kako veš, da se je res zgodilo? Ker "žrtev" tako pravi?
Ker žrtve praviloma ne lažejo, jim je verjeti edino racionalno stališče. So pa seveda potrebni še drugi dokazi, ki pa se redko nahajajo na telefonih žrtve.
eric_cartman je izjavil:
In zakaj ga imenuješ posiljevalec, če mu to dejanje ni dokazano?
Because freedom of speech, saj ga še vedno zagovarjate, kajne, ali samo takrat ko vam ustreza.
"Žrtve" ne samo da lažejo, zadnje časa kar stage-ajo lažne hate crime in podobno.
Mogoče 100 let nazaj je ženska res morala biti prepričana, da je šlo za posilstvo preden koga obtoži. I give you that.
Danes temu ni več tako. Moški in ženske so v naši družbi konkurenti in ne več partnerji. All bets are off.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenil: vostok_1 ()
FormerUser ::
"Žrtve" ne samo da lažejo, zadnje časa kar stage-ajo lažne hate crime in podobno.
Crap. Možnost, da te kdo posili so zanemarljive, ampak tiste, da te kdo lažno obtoži posilstva, so še pa manjše.
Mogoče 100 let nazaj je ženska res morala biti prepričana, da je šlo za posilstvo preden koga obtoži. I give you that.
Danes temu ni več tako. Moški in ženske so v naši družbi konkurenti in ne več partnerji. All bets are off.
100 let nazaj se je posilstvo smatralo za prekršek motenja posesti, sicer smo nekoliko napredovali, ampak še vedno ne dovolj, da bi se ta zločin resno obravnaval, nekateri se pa očitno zelo trudijo, da bi zavrteli kolesje zgodovine nazaj.
vostok_1 ::
Posilstvo se jemlje zelo resno v naši kulturi. Saj nam ti pa jype stalno razlagata, kako spolni zločini so najhujši zločini.
Ti mi raje povej kaj je huje, ali da se te toliko pretepe, da si pol še 1 leto na rehabilitaciji, ali da nekdo ti porine tiča tam dol za pol minute in zbeži.
Jz mislim, da prvi zločin je bistveno hujši.
Ti mi raje povej kaj je huje, ali da se te toliko pretepe, da si pol še 1 leto na rehabilitaciji, ali da nekdo ti porine tiča tam dol za pol minute in zbeži.
Jz mislim, da prvi zločin je bistveno hujši.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenil: vostok_1 ()
jype ::
in teh je cca. 9%,Za 800% si napihnil cifro. Čemu?
Posilstvo se jemlje zelo resno v naši kulturi.Ne, se ne. Moralo bi se, pa se ne.
Jz mislim, da prvi zločin je bistveno hujši.Jaz pa mislim, da ti nimaš pojma, o čem govoriš.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: jype ()
FormerUser ::
Posilstvo se jemlje zelo resno v naši kulturi. Saj nam ti pa jype stalno razlagata, kako spolni zločini so najhujši zločini.
Samo navidezno, v resnici pa živimo v rape culture v kateri posiljevalci nimajo resničnega razloga, da ne bi posiljevali, saj je možnost, da bodo prijavljeni ali celo kaznovani, zanemarljiva in tega se dobro zavedajo.
Ti mi raje povej kaj je huje, ali da se te toliko pretepe, da si pol še 1 leto na rehabilitaciji, ali da nekdo ti porine tiča tam dol za pol minute in zbeži.
Jz mislim, da prvi zločin je bistveno hujši.
Seveda misliš, tisti, ki so bili posiljeni, pa mislijo drugače. Naprimer:
Rapes that are not particularly physically violent can sometimes be extremely psychologically violent, especially if the rapist gained the victim's trust first. The type of rape-related PTSD contracted after psychologically violent rape by a trusted person as compared to physically violent rape by a stranger is different but no less severe (and can be more severe). This needs to be recognized under the law. Actual physical violence does not necessarily correlate with severity of trauma, or else rape would not be more than twice as likely to result in PTSD as getting stabbed.
vostok_1 ::
Ti garantiram, da PTSD je tudi zelo hud, če te nekdo tako prebuta.
In kot drugo, če te nekdo povsem neosebno zaštiha, as in, da je recimo bilo in the heat of the moment. Je res manj travmatično, kot da si nekdo vzame čas in te pred tem še terorizira.
Podobno je z posilstvom. Če gre za hipno reč, in da posiljevalca recimo niti ne vidiš, bo travma mnogo manjša, kot pa če se ti njegov obraz zažre v spomin.
In je pač značilno za katolibane, da je seks nekaj "ekstra". V starem rimu na posilstvo niso gledali s tako stigmo kot vi katolibani.
Šure, it was terrible, ampak you moved on. Ker pa katolibani in islamisti nam pravite, da so genitalije tako zelo sveti predeli, je jasno, da je travma toliko večja.
In ne, ne živimo v rape culture. Unless you mean mental rape culture.
In kot drugo, če te nekdo povsem neosebno zaštiha, as in, da je recimo bilo in the heat of the moment. Je res manj travmatično, kot da si nekdo vzame čas in te pred tem še terorizira.
Podobno je z posilstvom. Če gre za hipno reč, in da posiljevalca recimo niti ne vidiš, bo travma mnogo manjša, kot pa če se ti njegov obraz zažre v spomin.
In je pač značilno za katolibane, da je seks nekaj "ekstra". V starem rimu na posilstvo niso gledali s tako stigmo kot vi katolibani.
Šure, it was terrible, ampak you moved on. Ker pa katolibani in islamisti nam pravite, da so genitalije tako zelo sveti predeli, je jasno, da je travma toliko večja.
In ne, ne živimo v rape culture. Unless you mean mental rape culture.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
@nny ::
Če gre za hipno reč, in da posiljevalca recimo niti ne vidiš, bo travma mnogo manjša, kot pa če se ti njegov obraz zažre v spomin.
Pojma nimaš, ker kot moški nimaš možnosti se vživeti v žensko psiho. Posilstvo je hujše od pretepanja, ker ga žrtev dojame kot napad ne zgolj na fizično telo, ampak na celostno integriteto. Fizične rane se zacelijo, psihično pa mnogo težje.
Pojma nimaš, ker kot moški nimaš možnosti se vživeti v žensko psiho. Posilstvo je hujše od pretepanja, ker ga žrtev dojame kot napad ne zgolj na fizično telo, ampak na celostno integriteto. Fizične rane se zacelijo, psihično pa mnogo težje.
'For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.' Virginia Woolf
FormerUser ::
Podobno je z posilstvom. Če gre za hipno reč, in da posiljevalca recimo niti ne vidiš, bo travma mnogo manjša, kot pa če se ti njegov obraz zažre v spomin.
Večina posilstev se zgodi s strani oseb, ki jih žrtve poznajo. Torej kaj točno je tvoj point?
In je pač značilno za katolibane, da je seks nekaj "ekstra". V starem rimu na posilstvo niso gledali s tako stigmo kot vi katolibani.
Seveda, zato je bila pa pedofilija splošno sprejeta. Za večino ljudi danes je seks še vedno "ekstra" in si ne želimo vrnitve v čase starega Rima, perverti na srečo zaenkrat še niste v večini.
vostok_1 ::
Če gre za hipno reč, in da posiljevalca recimo niti ne vidiš, bo travma mnogo manjša, kot pa če se ti njegov obraz zažre v spomin.
Pojma nimaš, ker kot moški nimaš možnosti se vživeti v žensko psiho. Posilstvo je hujše od pretepanja, ker ga žrtev dojame kot napad ne zgolj na fizično telo, ampak na celostno integriteto. Fizične rane se zacelijo, psihično pa mnogo težje.
Posilstvo je za moškega bistveno bolj travmatično. Zaradi številnih, primarno kulturnih razlogov.
Pri penetracijskem posilstvu moškega ni mehanizma, kot recimo pri nekaterih ženskah, da se lubrificirajo in s tem nekoliko ublažijo fizično kmh "interakcijo".
Posilstva moški pa so običajno bolj mučenjske sorte kot pa zgolj seksualne.
Jasno, brutalna posilstva doživijo tudi ženske, niso pa to zgodovinski standard. Pogosteje so recimo vojaki prišli "spraznili jajca" in odšli. No, ok pustimo Nan King. Pač japonci.
And besides...če imaš fizično rano, ki te vedno spominja na travmatičen dogodek, je to mnogo slabše.
FormerUser je izjavil:
Podobno je z posilstvom. Če gre za hipno reč, in da posiljevalca recimo niti ne vidiš, bo travma mnogo manjša, kot pa če se ti njegov obraz zažre v spomin.
Večina posilstev se zgodi s strani oseb, ki jih žrtve poznajo. Torej kaj točno je tvoj point?
In je pač značilno za katolibane, da je seks nekaj "ekstra". V starem rimu na posilstvo niso gledali s tako stigmo kot vi katolibani.
Seveda, zato je bila pa pedofilija splošno sprejeta. Za večino ljudi danes je seks še vedno "ekstra" in si ne želimo vrnitve v čase starega Rima, perverti na srečo zaenkrat še niste v večini.
Moj point je, da katolibani/islamisti in feministke imate veliko skupnega, ki ga nočete priznati.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenil: vostok_1 ()
FormerUser ::
Posilstvo je za moškega bistveno bolj travmatično. Zaradi številnih, primarno kulturnih razlogov.
Pri penetracijskem posilstvu moškega ni mehanizma, kot recimo pri nekaterih ženskah, da se lubrificirajo in s tem nekoliko ublažijo fizično kmh "interakcijo". Posilstva moški pa so običajno bolj mučenjske sorte kot pa zgolj seksualne.
Kot da nobena ženska nikoli ni bila analno posiljena, kot da množična posilstva niso že od nekdja del vojaške taktike, kot da gre pri posilstvu zgolj za spolnost ne pa tudi za dominacijo, kaznovanje, lomljenje žrtve...
Moj point je, da katolibani/islamisti in feministke imate veliko skupnega, ki ga nočete priznati.
Še vedno precej manj kot imate skupnega šovinisti vseh barv in ideoloških prepričanj.
kuall ::
pri posilstvih in spolnih nadlegovanjih se gre za ustrahovanje žensk. vostok blodi, ko pravi, da je posilstvo huje za moške. wtf. to je tipično ženski problem. vsaka ženska se mora ves čas po malem bati tega, da bo posiljena, medtem ko moški nimajo tega strahu. jaz se nisem niti enkrat tega ustrašil v življenju npr.
in ta strah bi bilo treba izkoreniniti. tako kot se gredo zdej v ameriki je najbrž kar prava smer. ker je mau bedno živet v strahu celo življenje. plus to je, da če te nekdo posili se ti seks zagravža in si ob eno večjih veselj v življenju.
in ta strah bi bilo treba izkoreniniti. tako kot se gredo zdej v ameriki je najbrž kar prava smer. ker je mau bedno živet v strahu celo življenje. plus to je, da če te nekdo posili se ti seks zagravža in si ob eno večjih veselj v življenju.
vostok_1 ::
FormerUser je izjavil:
Posilstvo je za moškega bistveno bolj travmatično. Zaradi številnih, primarno kulturnih razlogov.
Pri penetracijskem posilstvu moškega ni mehanizma, kot recimo pri nekaterih ženskah, da se lubrificirajo in s tem nekoliko ublažijo fizično kmh "interakcijo". Posilstva moški pa so običajno bolj mučenjske sorte kot pa zgolj seksualne.
Kot da nobena ženska nikoli ni bila analno posiljena, kot da množična posilstva niso že od nekdja del vojaške taktike, kot da gre pri posilstvu zgolj za spolnost ne pa tudi za dominacijo, kaznovanje, lomljenje žrtve...
Moj point je, da katolibani/islamisti in feministke imate veliko skupnega, ki ga nočete priznati.
Še vedno precej manj kot imate skupnega šovinisti vseh barv in ideoloških prepričanj.
Seveda je bila analno posiljena, ampak to ni primarni khm..."point of entry". Vaginalna penetracija še vedno "prednjači".
(đizs krajst, i'm on a roll today)
pri posilstvih in spolnih nadlegovanjih se gre za ustrahovanje žensk. vostok blodi, ko pravi, da je posilstvo huje za moške. wtf. to je tipično ženski problem. vsaka ženska se mora ves čas po malem bati tega, da bo posiljena, medtem ko moški nimajo tega strahu. jaz se nisem niti enkrat tega ustrašil v življenju npr.
in ta strah bi bilo treba izkoreniniti. tako kot se gredo zdej v ameriki je najbrž kar prava smer. ker je mau bedno živet v strahu celo življenje. plus to je, da če te nekdo posili se ti seks zagravža in si ob eno večjih veselj v življenju.
A ni lepo gledati na svet tako simplistično.
Oh i wish i could.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenil: vostok_1 ()
FormerUser ::
Seveda je bila analno posiljena, ampak to ni primarni khm..."point of entry". Vaginalna penetracija še vedno "prednjači".
Pa kaj potem če prednjači, že konsenzualna je lahko neprijetna, kaj šele izsiljena. ampak seveda so moški vedno večji revčki, kajne in bolj trpijo.
@kuall
Tokrat si pa pozitivno presenetil.
vostok_1 ::
Vsak ima svoj križ za nositi.
Zgolj ideološki opranci gledate na svet tako...enoznačno.
Zgolj ideološki opranci gledate na svet tako...enoznačno.
There will be chutes!
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
It came from the lab.
Like tears in rain. Time to die. v_1 2012-21
kuall ::
hipatija ti imaš predsodek do mene, ker mi gre tvoj idol jype na živce. v resnici vedno pišem same pametne stvari.
FormerUser ::
@vostok
Kot da ti nisi ideološko spran.
@kuall
Jype nima nič s tem. Pišeš neumnosti, vmes pa tudi kaj takšnega pod kar se lahko podpišem.
Kot da ti nisi ideološko spran.
@kuall
Jype nima nič s tem. Pišeš neumnosti, vmes pa tudi kaj takšnega pod kar se lahko podpišem.
kuall ::
resnica boli, ne? nisi tako napredna, kot misliš. je pa fajn občutek, če si misliš, da si napredna, mi smo pa vsi kmetavzarji. problem, ki ga imate radikalni levičarji je pomankanje racionalnosti, samozavedanja in preveč slepega prepričanja v svoje blodnje. racionalnost mora biti pred strastjo, drgač nastane severna koreja iz vaših naprednih idej.
FormerUser ::
resnica boli, ne? nisi tako napredna, kot misliš. je pa fajn občutek, če si misliš, da si napredna, mi smo pa vsi kmetavzarji. problem, ki ga imate radikalni levičarji je pomankanje racionalnosti, samozavedanja in preveč slepega prepričanja v svoje blodnje. racionalnost mora biti pred strastjo, drgač nastane severna koreja iz vaših naprednih idej.
Sploh ne. Edino resnica nas lahko osvobodi, samo to kar ti večinoma pišeš, ni resnica.
tikitoki ::
Posilstvo se jemlje zelo resno v naši kulturi. Saj nam ti pa jype stalno razlagata, kako spolni zločini so najhujši zločini.
Ti mi raje povej kaj je huje, ali da se te toliko pretepe, da si pol še 1 leto na rehabilitaciji, ali da nekdo ti porine tiča tam dol za pol minute in zbeži.
Jz mislim, da prvi zločin je bistveno hujši.
Itak, da ni. Le zenske imajo custva in utrpijo nepopravljivo dusevno skodo. Ze, ce bi jo prijel za rit, bi te morali vsaj za 20 let dat na rehabilitacijo na Dob.
in teh je cca. 9%,Za 800% si napihnil cifro. Čemu?
Other studies have figures in the same range. The FBI has put the number of "unfounded" rapes - those determined to be false after investigation - at 8%.
Da si patoloski laznivec ze vemo.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: tikitoki ()
TheBlueOne ::
FormerUser je izjavil:
eric_cartman je izjavil:
ki nimajo nobene veze s samim posilstvom.
Kako veš, da se je res zgodilo? Ker "žrtev" tako pravi?
Ker žrtve praviloma ne lažejo, jim je verjeti edino racionalno stališče. So pa seveda potrebni še drugi dokazi, ki pa se redko nahajajo na telefonih žrtve.
Za katero hujse kaznivo dejanje ne velja enako? In kdo pravi, da ne bi bile lazne obtozbe velik problem, ce ne bi bile problematizirane. Zna biti, da bi se vsaka locitev zacela z lazno obtozbo, ce bi bila zastonj karta. Novodoben feminizem se pac ne zaveda kaj lahko njihove ideje v realnosti prinesejo.
jype ::
111111111111 ::
pri posilstvih in spolnih nadlegovanjih se gre za ustrahovanje žensk. vostok blodi, ko pravi, da je posilstvo huje za moške. wtf. to je tipično ženski problem. vsaka ženska se mora ves čas po malem bati tega, da bo posiljena, medtem ko moški nimajo tega strahu. jaz se nisem niti enkrat tega ustrašil v življenju npr.
Bo treba iti v zapor ali na kakšen rave party. :)
Zanimiva mi je agenda da lahko vsi sekasajo z vsemi, da je treba imeti odprt zakon in s tem spolno aktivnost spravijo na nivo športa, po drugi strani pa glasno oznanjo, da je posilstvo nekaj groznega in da se nobenemu ne sme zgoditi. Ampak če ste spolnost spravili na nivo športne aktivnosti, kako lahko potem stvari demonizirate.
tikitoki ::
Other studies have figures in the same range. The FBI has put the number of "unfounded" rapes - those determined to be false after investigation - at 8%.Kredibilne študije, ki jih niso izvajali konzervativni beli moški, pravijo drugače.
Ti si popolnoma pristranski, kar dokazujes znova in znova. Verjeti tebi ali FBI. Odlocitev je samoumevna. Ker, vem, da bos v svojem napuhu napacno sklepal, je pravilni odgovor FBI.
jype ::
111111111111 je izjavil:
Zanimiva mi je agenda da lahko vsi sekasajo z vsemi, da je treba imeti odprt zakon in s tem spolno aktivnost spravijo na nivo športa, po drugi strani pa glasno oznanjo, da je posilstvo nekaj groznega in da se nobenemu ne sme zgoditi. Ampak če ste spolnost spravili na nivo športne aktivnosti, kako lahko potem stvari demonizirate.Še en konzervativec, ki ne razume, kaj pomeni besedna zveza "prostovoljna privolitev"?
Ti si popolnoma pristranski, kar dokazujes znova in znova. Verjeti tebi ali FBI. Odlocitev je samoumevna. Ker, vem, da bos v svojem napuhu napacno sklepal, je pravilni odgovor FBI.Bogati beli moški ste tako prikupno predvidljivi!
111111111111 ::
Še en konzervativec, ki ne razume, kaj pomeni besedna zveza "prostovoljna privolitev"?
Jaz že razumem. Ampak kako razumejo mladi, če lahko vsak z vsakim in kadar hoče in kolikor hoče. Swniganje ni noben problem, spolnost je posplošena na nivo športne aktivnosti, zakaj bi se potem držali pravila prostovoljne privolitve?
Najprej furate mantro da pri spolnosti ne bi smelo biti zadržkov, obenem pa obsojate posilstva in pedofilijo.
jype ::
111111111111 je izjavil:
Jaz že razumem.Ne, očitno je, da ne razumeš:
111111111111 je izjavil:
Ampak kako razumejo mladi, če lahko vsak z vsakim in kadar hoče in kolikor hoče.Mladi razumejo, da je treba vnaprej vprašat, če smeš, ti pa očitno ne.
111111111111 je izjavil:
Swniganje ni noben problem, spolnost je posplošena na nivo športne aktivnosti, zakaj bi se potem držali pravila prostovoljne privolitve?Hm? A tebe pogosto proti tvoji volji prisilijo, da igraš košarko in vaterpolo?
111111111111 je izjavil:
Najprej furate mantro da pri spolnosti ne bi smelo biti zadržkov, obenem pa obsojate posilstva in pedofilijo.Obsojamo tudi tiste, ki te kruto silijo v to, da si ves čas golman, potem pa z vso silo nabijajo vate.
poweroff ::
Too much.
Se pravi če si žrtev kaznivega dejanja (ali pa, kot pravijo nekateri: domnevna žrtev), se moraš odpovedati zasebnosti??? Sicer ne vem kako točno je v Britaniji, ampak pri nas so elektronski nosilci listinski dokaz. Kar pomeni, da ne velja plain view doktrina. In so posegi v zasebnost precej širši (hujši).
Bom razložil. Če policija išče ukraden avto, lahko z odredbo vstopi v garažo. Ne sme pa odpirati predalov v spalnici, ker tam ukradenega avta pač ne more biti.
Pri listinskih dokazih je drugače. Poslovne knjige lahko policija preišče od prve do zadnje strani. Tudi če že na prvi strani najde dokaz o poslovni goljufiji. Podobno je z elektronskimi nosilci. Kar pomeni, da če žrtev policiji izroči dostop do vseh svojih naprav, lahko policija prebrska in preišče vse. In če gre kopija nosilca v spis, lahko prebrskajo vse tudi odvetniki nasprotne stranke.
Ko se stvari vzamejo izven konteksta, se lahko začne "dokazovati", da je žrtev sama sprovocirala kaznivo dejanje... ali pa se najde dokaze o kakšnem drugem nepovezanem kaznivem dejanju žrtve (kar pomeni, da če imaš na telefonu karkoli spornega pač ne boš prijavil kaznivega dejanja, ker boš s tem še sebe spravil v kazenski pregon)... ali pa se bo to zlorabilo za sramotenje žrtve in psihični pritisk na njo.
Skratka, totalno neprimerna rešitev. Še posebej zato, ker bomo čez nekaj let lahko zaznali function creep - začetne varovalke bodo počasi začele odpadati, tole se bo začelo širiti še na druga kazniva dejanja,...
Sicer je primer Liama Allana grozljiv, ampak predlagana rešitev se mi zdi zelo problematična.
Po drugi strani pa ne vidim razloga, zakaj bi morali proti temu predlogu protestirati. Naj se kdo drug ukvarja s tem. It is not my call.
Se pravi če si žrtev kaznivega dejanja (ali pa, kot pravijo nekateri: domnevna žrtev), se moraš odpovedati zasebnosti??? Sicer ne vem kako točno je v Britaniji, ampak pri nas so elektronski nosilci listinski dokaz. Kar pomeni, da ne velja plain view doktrina. In so posegi v zasebnost precej širši (hujši).
Bom razložil. Če policija išče ukraden avto, lahko z odredbo vstopi v garažo. Ne sme pa odpirati predalov v spalnici, ker tam ukradenega avta pač ne more biti.
Pri listinskih dokazih je drugače. Poslovne knjige lahko policija preišče od prve do zadnje strani. Tudi če že na prvi strani najde dokaz o poslovni goljufiji. Podobno je z elektronskimi nosilci. Kar pomeni, da če žrtev policiji izroči dostop do vseh svojih naprav, lahko policija prebrska in preišče vse. In če gre kopija nosilca v spis, lahko prebrskajo vse tudi odvetniki nasprotne stranke.
Ko se stvari vzamejo izven konteksta, se lahko začne "dokazovati", da je žrtev sama sprovocirala kaznivo dejanje... ali pa se najde dokaze o kakšnem drugem nepovezanem kaznivem dejanju žrtve (kar pomeni, da če imaš na telefonu karkoli spornega pač ne boš prijavil kaznivega dejanja, ker boš s tem še sebe spravil v kazenski pregon)... ali pa se bo to zlorabilo za sramotenje žrtve in psihični pritisk na njo.
Skratka, totalno neprimerna rešitev. Še posebej zato, ker bomo čez nekaj let lahko zaznali function creep - začetne varovalke bodo počasi začele odpadati, tole se bo začelo širiti še na druga kazniva dejanja,...
Sicer je primer Liama Allana grozljiv, ampak predlagana rešitev se mi zdi zelo problematična.
Po drugi strani pa ne vidim razloga, zakaj bi morali proti temu predlogu protestirati. Naj se kdo drug ukvarja s tem. It is not my call.
sudo poweroff
jype ::
Naj se kdo drug ukvarja s tem.First they came for the Jews, then for vostok, then for ZaphodBB, then for Matthai and we all clapped.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- predlagalo izbris: 111111111111 ()
111111111111 ::
@jype:
Kar vleči se ven z retoriko. Dejstva so da ste spolnost tako posloplošili in generalizirali, da današnja mladina preprosto misli, da pravila ne obstajajo, da meje ne obstajo, da je vse vsem všeč. In mlade to zbega.
Medvedja usluga levice bi rekel. Zaradi nekih svojih blodenj ste šli po poti stare grčije in rima. Propad velikih sloni na razuzdanosti, nezmožnosti omejevanja in postavljana pravil.
Kar vleči se ven z retoriko. Dejstva so da ste spolnost tako posloplošili in generalizirali, da današnja mladina preprosto misli, da pravila ne obstajajo, da meje ne obstajo, da je vse vsem všeč. In mlade to zbega.
Medvedja usluga levice bi rekel. Zaradi nekih svojih blodenj ste šli po poti stare grčije in rima. Propad velikih sloni na razuzdanosti, nezmožnosti omejevanja in postavljana pravil.
Matek ::
111111111111 je izjavil:
Medvedja usluga levice bi rekel. Zaradi nekih svojih blodenj ste šli po poti stare grčije in rima. Propad velikih sloni na razuzdanosti, nezmožnosti omejevanja in postavljana pravil.Bodi faca in posodobi wiki članek o propadu Rima s temi koristnimi informacijami.
Bolje ispasti glup nego iz aviona.
tikitoki ::
Jype itak bluzi na polno. Podas uradno statistiko in on zgolj zavrne podatke, ker menda imas neke raziskave, ki se z njo ne strinjajo. Raziskav oz. vira sicer ni spoben navesti, sam ok, on menda operarira z dejstvi:).
Seveda pa se cudezno strinja z nepreverljivmi trditvami o neprijavljenih posilstvih.
Ker tisti podatki so sigurno zanesljivi, tko, k vse ostale ocene:)
Seveda pa se cudezno strinja z nepreverljivmi trditvami o neprijavljenih posilstvih.
Ker tisti podatki so sigurno zanesljivi, tko, k vse ostale ocene:)
poweroff ::
Naj se kdo drug ukvarja s tem.First they came for the Jews, then for vostok, then for ZaphodBB, then for Matthai and we all clapped.
Ja, mislim, da nisi razumel v čem je problem.
Nekdo iz arabske države. Normalen človek. Ne zagovarja terorizma. Zagovarja pravice žensk in vseh manjšin. Je strpen do drugih religij.
Vsakič, ko gre čez letališko kontrolo ga slečejo skoraj do golega, maltretirajo, posluša neprimerne opazke.
Človek ni sovražnik, ampak ga obravnavajo kot sovražnika.
Kaj bo naredil ko vidi, da se nekdo radikalizira ali pripravlja nek napad? Sodeloval ne bo, to je zagotovo. Ampak bo pač pogledal stran. To ni njegov problem. On je zdaj "sovražnik", oziroma so ga ljudje na zahodu začeli obravnavati kot sovražnika. Sicer se do njih ne bo obnašal sovražno, ampak tudi pomagal jim ne bo. Se naj pač znajdejo sami.
In če se vrnemo na temo: jaz sem moški. Kot moški sem menda "sovražnik" žensk. "Privilegiranec". In tako dalje.
Ne, kot umetno ustvarjen "sovražnik" se ne mislim boriti proti zblojenim feministkam. Ampak enostavno jim ne bom pomagal. Svojo energijo bom pač usmeril drugam. Tam, kjer me ne bodo neutemeljeno napadali zaradi mojih osebnostnih lastnosti.
Tako preprosto je to.
sudo poweroff
TheBlueOne ::
Kaj naj bi imele statistike z odlocanjem krivde?
Ce recimo ubogamo Hipatijo in recemo, da ker je bolj verjetno, da lazne prijave ni, zato upostevamo kriv dokler ni dokazano nedolzen lahko isto naredimo pri recimo "Afroamerican proti belcu kriv dokler ne dokaze nasprotno, ker je statisticno s strani afroamericanov vec kriminiala".
Brez zamere, ampak to so ukrepi, ki si jih lahko predstavljajo samo zavedeni ozkogledni ljudje, ki jih pravo ne zanima, ampak samo neka krivica.
Drugace nisem pristas tega ukrepa, ze ker lahko obe strani pokazeta vsebine. Ce ze morajo iskati motive naj se potrudijo in pod prisego povprasajo njene prijateljice.
Ampak, da se zenske laznih obtozb ne okoriscajo pa je neumnost.
- Aktualni bolj odmevni primer, VanDyke Perry izpuscen po 26 letih, ko je ona priznala, da je bila obtozba lazna
- A Rape on Campus "Roling stone magazine" Poglejte youtube kaj je mozno, se se tolerira lazne obtozbe, kako postopajo zavedeni ljudje itn.
Te in se kaksne primere sem si pogledal, ko smo enkrat diskutirali na to temo. Skratka ce se uzakoni, da je kriv dokler ne dokaze nasprotno bi to bilo ultimativno orozje za nore zenske, ki si sedaj tega verjetno ne upajo in tega jaz ne bi dopsutil. Ne recem, da ni norih moskih, da ne bo kaksna Hipatija poplezala, ampak trdim, da so tudi nore zenske.
Kot drugo pa me zanima od kaksnega pravnika, kdaj se steje kot lazna obtozba? Ali ko primer pade ali ko ona prizna? Glede na to kako malo laznih obtozb naj bi bilo in kako malo naj bi bilo obsodb posilstev predvidevam, da je lazna obtozba samo ko zenska to prizna in ne ko primer pade, kar bi nakazovalo, da jih je lahko dosti vec, kot zelijo prikazati nekateri.
Ce recimo ubogamo Hipatijo in recemo, da ker je bolj verjetno, da lazne prijave ni, zato upostevamo kriv dokler ni dokazano nedolzen lahko isto naredimo pri recimo "Afroamerican proti belcu kriv dokler ne dokaze nasprotno, ker je statisticno s strani afroamericanov vec kriminiala".
Brez zamere, ampak to so ukrepi, ki si jih lahko predstavljajo samo zavedeni ozkogledni ljudje, ki jih pravo ne zanima, ampak samo neka krivica.
Drugace nisem pristas tega ukrepa, ze ker lahko obe strani pokazeta vsebine. Ce ze morajo iskati motive naj se potrudijo in pod prisego povprasajo njene prijateljice.
Ampak, da se zenske laznih obtozb ne okoriscajo pa je neumnost.
- Aktualni bolj odmevni primer, VanDyke Perry izpuscen po 26 letih, ko je ona priznala, da je bila obtozba lazna
- A Rape on Campus "Roling stone magazine" Poglejte youtube kaj je mozno, se se tolerira lazne obtozbe, kako postopajo zavedeni ljudje itn.
Te in se kaksne primere sem si pogledal, ko smo enkrat diskutirali na to temo. Skratka ce se uzakoni, da je kriv dokler ne dokaze nasprotno bi to bilo ultimativno orozje za nore zenske, ki si sedaj tega verjetno ne upajo in tega jaz ne bi dopsutil. Ne recem, da ni norih moskih, da ne bo kaksna Hipatija poplezala, ampak trdim, da so tudi nore zenske.
Kot drugo pa me zanima od kaksnega pravnika, kdaj se steje kot lazna obtozba? Ali ko primer pade ali ko ona prizna? Glede na to kako malo laznih obtozb naj bi bilo in kako malo naj bi bilo obsodb posilstev predvidevam, da je lazna obtozba samo ko zenska to prizna in ne ko primer pade, kar bi nakazovalo, da jih je lahko dosti vec, kot zelijo prikazati nekateri.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenil: TheBlueOne ()
111111111111 ::
111111111111 je izjavil:
Medvedja usluga levice bi rekel. Zaradi nekih svojih blodenj ste šli po poti stare grčije in rima. Propad velikih sloni na razuzdanosti, nezmožnosti omejevanja in postavljana pravil.Bodi faca in posodobi wiki članek o propadu Rima s temi koristnimi informacijami.
Reason why the Roman Empire fell - Decline in Morals
A decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forces a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines who enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena.
Izvoli, da boš lahko sam dopolnil. Ni bil edini razlog, je pa vsekakor igral vlogo.
poweroff ::
TheBlueOne je izjavil:
Skratka ce se uzakoni, da je kriv dokler ne dokaze nasprotno bi to bilo ultimativno orozje za nore zenske
Ali pa za nore moške...
Mislim, v tem britanskem primeru se mi zdi problematično predvsem to, da 1) ob prijavi kaznivega dejanja žrtev MORA (kao prostovoljno) dati dostop do svojih podatkov (sicer se njena prijava ne upošteva), HKRATI pa 2) domnevnemu storilcu lahko napravo zasežejo samo z odredbo.
Skratka, gre za obupno neravnovesje, ko je domnevni storilec bolj zaščiten od (domnevne) žrtve. WTF?
Še dodaten problem predstavlja dejstvo, da se je tak drastičen ukrep sprejel na podlagi enega (sicer groznega) deviantnega primera, ko je ženska nekoga lažno obdolžila posilstva. Skratka, na podlagi enega ali dveh takih izjemnih (!) primerov se nato sprejme sistemski ukrep, ki počez udari prav vse.
Kar je najbolj zanimivo je pa dejstvo, da to ni nič novega. Tudi pri nas se je zaradi enega slabo obravnavanega primera posilstva (izjema) začelo govoriti o tem, da bo treba zakonodajo popravit (sistemska rešitev na počez). Čeprav je šlo v tistem primeru predvsem za slabo ali celo koruptivno delo tožilstva in ne problem pomanjkljive zakonodaje.
Ampak nekateri so takrat tak pristop na veliko zagovarjali... in niso pomislili, da bo popolnoma enak pristop v kakšnem drugem primeru pa morda uperjen proti njim. In točno to se je zgodilo v tem britanskem primeru.
Ampak kot sem rekel... it is not my call. I am the "enemy".
sudo poweroff
FormerUser ::
Izgleda, da je 7% posiljevalcev, ki pristane za zapahi, preveč, je treba znižati ta procent in kako lažje do tega kot tako, da žrtve začneš obravnavati kot kriminalce. Ampak nič presenetljivega, samo še en navaden dan v patriarhatu. Kljub temu upam, da bo legalno izpodbijanje tega zakona, ki so ga že napovedale skupine za ženske pravice, uspelo.
7 RAZLOGOV ZAKAJ JE OMENJENI PREDLOG NEPRIMEREN:
Reason 1: This is a way to discredit the victim
Let's be clear. This initiative is not to protect, support or help the victim of sexual violence in any way. I don't care how many bows you tie around it, this is a way to discredit victims (mainly women and girls) so that the case is too weak to take forward and so no further action is taken.
The data from the phone could include call logs, internet history, text messages, locations, social media profiles, photos, videos, audio recordings, geodata, connections, friend requests, emails, journals, notes pages, files, dropbox, apps, internet shopping and even finance apps.
Just stop and think about how private this stuff is to you. That pic you took in the shower. That time you bought vagisil online. That time you googled gay porn. That time you spent ages looking at your ex's Instagram. The messages you send to your best friend about how much you hate that bloke you work with who keeps being creepy. The social media accounts you follow. The tweets you posted about abortion rights. The time you recorded yourself trying to sing 'Fighter' by Christina Aguilera. The horrible messages you sent to your brother in a vile argument. That new dildo you bought from that online sex store.
Think about it. Think how this irrelevant shit could be used against you. This is what they want to find. Compromising information that can be used for Reason 2.
Reason 2: They are looking for characterological or behavioural 'flaws' that could undermine their case
The point of this invasive and unnecessary exercise is to look for evidence of things that undermine their case. Evidence of your character, behaviours, communication, the company you keep, who you talk to, the things you say online, the stuff you google, the selfies you take.
People reading this might think I'm overreacting or even over exaggerating here - but 10 years working in sexual violence has shown me that this has been happening for years. I've worked with women and children who have had iPads, phones and laptops removed to check for evidence when they were the victims of CSE, trafficking or rape. Some kids don't get their phones back for years. I've worked with women who had their phones taken for evidence purposes to then have private information and data being used against them by the defence solicitors. I've interviewed women whose cases fell apart because they texted the rapist after the rape in a panic and then the police used that to argue she was lying.
One woman I interviewed texted the rapist a few hours later to say she was sorry. In the interview, she told me she apologised to him out of sheer panic and that she felt worthless and disgusting, and she had apologised to him for saying no repeatedly and not wanting sex which led to him raping her. She blamed herself, so she said sorry to him.
Unfortunately, that's not how the police saw that message. That case was dropped.
Imagine a woman or girl is raped but the night before she was googling lingerie. Imagine a girl is messaging her best friend saying she cannot wait to have sex with her new boyfriend but the boyfriend then forces her to do things she didn't want to do. Imagine a wife is sending messages to her abusive husband telling him she loves him, but he's raping her every night when he gets drunk. Imagine a girl is being trafficked and she is on WhatsApp with the abusers who are telling her they will get her some weed if she gives them head and she agrees. Imagine a woman is sexually abused and Googles it for weeks before actually reporting to police and she is then questioned as to why she was googling all of the info about sexual abuse but not reporting.
Think about it. We already have cases in which children are being blamed for rape because they were wearing lacy underwear (Irish trial, 2018). Imagine that level of victim blaming and misogyny - but with all of the data on your smartphone.
Reason 3: Most (or none) of the data they will take from your phone and use against you is not even relevant to the case
This is important. Even in trials, lines of argument can be deemed inappropriate, evidence can be inadmissible, information can be hidden from a jury so as not to bias them etc.
So what strikes me as unfair about this practice is that the police are gaining data that is completely irrelevant to the offence. How is your photo album relevant to you being raped by your partner? How is your call log relevant to you being sexually harassed by that guy on the tube? How are your emails relevant to you being sexually abused in childhood?
This information is excessive and irrelevant. It would make much more sense if phones were only ever being taken in cases in which the phone contains the evidence (a video of the woman being sexually harassed on the tube, death threats from the ex-partner, call logs that prove the offender called the victim 68 times in the night he killed her, geodata that can prove the whereabouts of the girl when she was trafficked).
And of course, police will argue that this is precisely what they are looking for. But if the case doesn't include technology and doesn't require the confiscation and examination of the victims' smartphone, why are they telling women they will drop sexual violence cases unless they hand over their phones?
Reason 4: Everyone is entitled to a private life
You know what? Even if you had googled 'how to have good anal sex' 15 minutes before you are anally raped by a man who ignored your boundaries, WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
Even if you took a picture of yourself naked and sent it to some guy who three weeks later drugged you at a party and sexually assaulted you, WHY DOES THAT MATTER?
Even if you had sent your boyfriend 12 messages telling him how much you loved him on the weekend he beat you up, WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
Everyone is entitled to a private life. None of this cancels out the crime of the perpetrator. Are we now sliding down a slippery slope of 'oh well, she takes pictures of herself in her underwear so it can't be rape' or 'oh she text him saying she loved him so it can't really be domestic violence'? or 'she likes watching porn so she can't be a real victim of sex trafficking'?
Is that where we are?
2019? Hello?
Reason 5: One guy made a complaint against a woman and the whole fucking system changes but thousands of women suffer injustice and nothing changes for decades
Well, isn't that just peachy?
One guy who is being held up as a victim of a 'false rape allegation' for which there is no evidence for, managed to kick the entire system into change within months whereas women's rights and rape crisis organisations have been trying for decades for reform and achieved very little.
Let's be clear, actual false allegations are appalling - but they are extremely rare and false rape allegations are one of the rarest types of false reports there are. Have a think how many people might falsely report their house was burgled for an insurance job. How many people falsely accuse people of harassment. How many people falsely report their phones or cars stolen. Where's the outrage for those false reports? Where's the massive systemic change? Do those victims of crime have to surrender their mobile phones too? To look for evidence?
How is it that women and girls have been being discriminated against, harmed, traumatised and blamed by the criminal justice system for decades and change is slower than a tired snail - but one guy kicks off about his case being mishandled and the entire system shifts?
Don't worry, I know the answer to that question. We all do.
Reason 6: How come it's so easy to manipulate innocent victims into handing over their phones but it takes us months or years for police to get hold of the phones of traffickers, rapists and child abusers?
In the same vein as reason 5 - if systemic and procedural change is this easy, can ANYONE explain to me why the professionals working in CSE, trafficking and child abuse are being told by police forces that there is nothing more they can do to disrupt perpetrators and that they can't possibly seize phones and iPads without evidence or warrants?
How the hell have you managed to utilise tactics against victims that you can't even use against child traffickers?
How have the police managed to convince other professions that change is slow and cumbersome, will take years and will be hard to achieve - when this has been turned around in a matter of months?
How has blackmail been signed off as a tactic against victims?
'If you don't give us your phone, we will not take this case forward.'
I mean, wow.
Don't ever let me catch police tell us again that changing the systems and practice takes years and we all have to be patient. Nope.
Reason 7: There is nothing in law which states that the police can blackmail you into giving over your phone and you are entitled to representation and protection from crime anyway
Everyone in this country has a human right to protection from crime and harm. Remember that. You have a right to be able to access law enforcement and protection. You have a right to be able to report a crime. You have a right to transparent and fair justice systems.
Being blackmailed into handing over your mobile phone so they can look through the last 7 years of data when you aren't even a suspect or offender is NOT part of those rights. You do not have to surrender your mobile phone and have your own private life inevitably used against you. Don't do it. It's not in your best interests and police should not be allowed to refuse to take a case of rape or sexual violence on just because you won't let some office jockey pour through your texts and photos looking for evidence that undermines their case so they have an excuse to drop even more rape cases than they already do.
My final word on this is:
What message is this new practice giving to rapists and sex offenders who are targeting women and girls? What are they learning from this?
That their victims must consent to having years of their private data checked before being believed? That their victims must not only be brave enough to report (87% never do according to CSEW, 2017), but also should let the police investigate completely irrelevant sources of private data to check their credibility?
To the police, you've made a grave mistake and you need to rethink this before you do major damage to individuals, reporting rates and to your own force reputation and public trust.
Written by Jessica Eaton
7 RAZLOGOV ZAKAJ JE OMENJENI PREDLOG NEPRIMEREN:
Reason 1: This is a way to discredit the victim
Let's be clear. This initiative is not to protect, support or help the victim of sexual violence in any way. I don't care how many bows you tie around it, this is a way to discredit victims (mainly women and girls) so that the case is too weak to take forward and so no further action is taken.
The data from the phone could include call logs, internet history, text messages, locations, social media profiles, photos, videos, audio recordings, geodata, connections, friend requests, emails, journals, notes pages, files, dropbox, apps, internet shopping and even finance apps.
Just stop and think about how private this stuff is to you. That pic you took in the shower. That time you bought vagisil online. That time you googled gay porn. That time you spent ages looking at your ex's Instagram. The messages you send to your best friend about how much you hate that bloke you work with who keeps being creepy. The social media accounts you follow. The tweets you posted about abortion rights. The time you recorded yourself trying to sing 'Fighter' by Christina Aguilera. The horrible messages you sent to your brother in a vile argument. That new dildo you bought from that online sex store.
Think about it. Think how this irrelevant shit could be used against you. This is what they want to find. Compromising information that can be used for Reason 2.
Reason 2: They are looking for characterological or behavioural 'flaws' that could undermine their case
The point of this invasive and unnecessary exercise is to look for evidence of things that undermine their case. Evidence of your character, behaviours, communication, the company you keep, who you talk to, the things you say online, the stuff you google, the selfies you take.
People reading this might think I'm overreacting or even over exaggerating here - but 10 years working in sexual violence has shown me that this has been happening for years. I've worked with women and children who have had iPads, phones and laptops removed to check for evidence when they were the victims of CSE, trafficking or rape. Some kids don't get their phones back for years. I've worked with women who had their phones taken for evidence purposes to then have private information and data being used against them by the defence solicitors. I've interviewed women whose cases fell apart because they texted the rapist after the rape in a panic and then the police used that to argue she was lying.
One woman I interviewed texted the rapist a few hours later to say she was sorry. In the interview, she told me she apologised to him out of sheer panic and that she felt worthless and disgusting, and she had apologised to him for saying no repeatedly and not wanting sex which led to him raping her. She blamed herself, so she said sorry to him.
Unfortunately, that's not how the police saw that message. That case was dropped.
Imagine a woman or girl is raped but the night before she was googling lingerie. Imagine a girl is messaging her best friend saying she cannot wait to have sex with her new boyfriend but the boyfriend then forces her to do things she didn't want to do. Imagine a wife is sending messages to her abusive husband telling him she loves him, but he's raping her every night when he gets drunk. Imagine a girl is being trafficked and she is on WhatsApp with the abusers who are telling her they will get her some weed if she gives them head and she agrees. Imagine a woman is sexually abused and Googles it for weeks before actually reporting to police and she is then questioned as to why she was googling all of the info about sexual abuse but not reporting.
Think about it. We already have cases in which children are being blamed for rape because they were wearing lacy underwear (Irish trial, 2018). Imagine that level of victim blaming and misogyny - but with all of the data on your smartphone.
Reason 3: Most (or none) of the data they will take from your phone and use against you is not even relevant to the case
This is important. Even in trials, lines of argument can be deemed inappropriate, evidence can be inadmissible, information can be hidden from a jury so as not to bias them etc.
So what strikes me as unfair about this practice is that the police are gaining data that is completely irrelevant to the offence. How is your photo album relevant to you being raped by your partner? How is your call log relevant to you being sexually harassed by that guy on the tube? How are your emails relevant to you being sexually abused in childhood?
This information is excessive and irrelevant. It would make much more sense if phones were only ever being taken in cases in which the phone contains the evidence (a video of the woman being sexually harassed on the tube, death threats from the ex-partner, call logs that prove the offender called the victim 68 times in the night he killed her, geodata that can prove the whereabouts of the girl when she was trafficked).
And of course, police will argue that this is precisely what they are looking for. But if the case doesn't include technology and doesn't require the confiscation and examination of the victims' smartphone, why are they telling women they will drop sexual violence cases unless they hand over their phones?
Reason 4: Everyone is entitled to a private life
You know what? Even if you had googled 'how to have good anal sex' 15 minutes before you are anally raped by a man who ignored your boundaries, WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
Even if you took a picture of yourself naked and sent it to some guy who three weeks later drugged you at a party and sexually assaulted you, WHY DOES THAT MATTER?
Even if you had sent your boyfriend 12 messages telling him how much you loved him on the weekend he beat you up, WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
Everyone is entitled to a private life. None of this cancels out the crime of the perpetrator. Are we now sliding down a slippery slope of 'oh well, she takes pictures of herself in her underwear so it can't be rape' or 'oh she text him saying she loved him so it can't really be domestic violence'? or 'she likes watching porn so she can't be a real victim of sex trafficking'?
Is that where we are?
2019? Hello?
Reason 5: One guy made a complaint against a woman and the whole fucking system changes but thousands of women suffer injustice and nothing changes for decades
Well, isn't that just peachy?
One guy who is being held up as a victim of a 'false rape allegation' for which there is no evidence for, managed to kick the entire system into change within months whereas women's rights and rape crisis organisations have been trying for decades for reform and achieved very little.
Let's be clear, actual false allegations are appalling - but they are extremely rare and false rape allegations are one of the rarest types of false reports there are. Have a think how many people might falsely report their house was burgled for an insurance job. How many people falsely accuse people of harassment. How many people falsely report their phones or cars stolen. Where's the outrage for those false reports? Where's the massive systemic change? Do those victims of crime have to surrender their mobile phones too? To look for evidence?
How is it that women and girls have been being discriminated against, harmed, traumatised and blamed by the criminal justice system for decades and change is slower than a tired snail - but one guy kicks off about his case being mishandled and the entire system shifts?
Don't worry, I know the answer to that question. We all do.
Reason 6: How come it's so easy to manipulate innocent victims into handing over their phones but it takes us months or years for police to get hold of the phones of traffickers, rapists and child abusers?
In the same vein as reason 5 - if systemic and procedural change is this easy, can ANYONE explain to me why the professionals working in CSE, trafficking and child abuse are being told by police forces that there is nothing more they can do to disrupt perpetrators and that they can't possibly seize phones and iPads without evidence or warrants?
How the hell have you managed to utilise tactics against victims that you can't even use against child traffickers?
How have the police managed to convince other professions that change is slow and cumbersome, will take years and will be hard to achieve - when this has been turned around in a matter of months?
How has blackmail been signed off as a tactic against victims?
'If you don't give us your phone, we will not take this case forward.'
I mean, wow.
Don't ever let me catch police tell us again that changing the systems and practice takes years and we all have to be patient. Nope.
Reason 7: There is nothing in law which states that the police can blackmail you into giving over your phone and you are entitled to representation and protection from crime anyway
Everyone in this country has a human right to protection from crime and harm. Remember that. You have a right to be able to access law enforcement and protection. You have a right to be able to report a crime. You have a right to transparent and fair justice systems.
Being blackmailed into handing over your mobile phone so they can look through the last 7 years of data when you aren't even a suspect or offender is NOT part of those rights. You do not have to surrender your mobile phone and have your own private life inevitably used against you. Don't do it. It's not in your best interests and police should not be allowed to refuse to take a case of rape or sexual violence on just because you won't let some office jockey pour through your texts and photos looking for evidence that undermines their case so they have an excuse to drop even more rape cases than they already do.
My final word on this is:
What message is this new practice giving to rapists and sex offenders who are targeting women and girls? What are they learning from this?
That their victims must consent to having years of their private data checked before being believed? That their victims must not only be brave enough to report (87% never do according to CSEW, 2017), but also should let the police investigate completely irrelevant sources of private data to check their credibility?
To the police, you've made a grave mistake and you need to rethink this before you do major damage to individuals, reporting rates and to your own force reputation and public trust.
Written by Jessica Eaton
Vredno ogleda ...
| Tema | Ogledi | Zadnje sporočilo | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tema | Ogledi | Zadnje sporočilo | |
| » | Britanskega filtra pornografije ne bo (strani: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 )Oddelek: Novice / Omrežja / internet | 116477 (111179) | Cruz |