NationStates Jolt Archive

Rape witness in cell ordeal anger
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7906389.stm)
Rape victim seeks justice

A woman jailed for trying to flee the witness box, while giving evidence against a man she claimed raped her, has called for the judge to be sacked.

Ann Robertson, 43, was remanded by Roger Craik QC during the case against George Cummings at the High Court in Edinburgh earlier this month.

She was arrested and taken to police cells overnight after failing to deliver her testimony.

Ms Robertson made a complaint about the temporary judge to the Crown Office.

The trial resulted in George Cummings, from Grangemouth, near Falkirk, being found guilty of abusing two young girls during the 1970s.


The man's totally out of line. Absolutely appalling
Ann Robertson

Pensioner jailed for child abuse

However, the charge of raping Ms Robertson was dropped.

He has been sentenced to three-and-half years in prison.

Ms Robertson accused Mr Craik, who is also a sheriff, of treating her more like a criminal than a victim after he instructed her to be held at St Leonard's police station in Edinburgh overnight.

She said: "The judge turned round and said 'well maybe a night in the cells will calm you down'.

"It was just totally out of line and then I was escorted from the witness box and then I was arrested by the police."

She added: "The man's totally out of line. Absolutely appalling.

"And if that's the way that he's going to treat future victims then his reaction is going to stop people coming forward."

Ms Robertson's complaints against Sheriff Craik is being considered by Scotland's most senior judge.

Figures show that of the 922 allegations of rape in Scotland last year, only 27 resulted in convictions.

I'm not really sure what I can say about this.

This judge needs a good smacking around in my opinion.

If they fire the judge immediately, maybe the government won't be sued.

If the judge is going to do this ridiculous shit, there will also be other behaviors - such as people waiting outside the prison 3 and a half years from now, to meet George Cummings.

If they fire the judge immediately, maybe the government won't be sued.

Can't sack a Scottish judge for being incompetent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_vitam_aut_culpam

Can't sack a Scottish judge for being incompetent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_vitam_aut_culpam

"to hold office permanently or until they forfeit such by misconduct. "

"to hold office permanently or until they forfeit such by misconduct. "

"Therefore, ad vitam aut culpum has a limited applicability which does protect an office from dismissal if they are incompetent."

The judge acted within his power and as such commited no misconduct.

Can't sack a Scottish judge for being incompetent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_vitam_aut_culpam

Well, the OP shows that the judge is definitely incompetent.

This is yet another example of how supposedly enlightened, civilised Western legal systems are set up to protect the criminal in cases like these and try the victim rather than the accused.

She was arrested and taken to police cells overnight after failing to deliver her testimony.

The trial resulted in George Cummings, from Grangemouth, near Falkirk, being found guilty of abusing two young girls during the 1970s. However, the charge of raping Ms Robertson was dropped.


Excuse me.

So, we have someone who accuses someone else of raping her. This witness refuses to deliver her testimony at the trial. The man she accused of raping her gets acquitted of that crime.

Did I get the facts straight? Because, in this case, it seems like the allegations she made were false (or not demonstrable to be more accurate) to begin with; and the fact that the guy is a bloody bastard for abusing two girls has nothing to do with the truth of the other allegation. Meh.:confused:

It seems to me she panicked and tried to flee the witness box because she saw the man she accused of harming her.

Surely there could have been a better way to handle this than to jail her to calm her down?

It seems to me she panicked and tried to flee the witness box because she saw the man she accused of harming her.

Surely there could have been a better way to handle this than to jail her to calm her down?

... I can see putting her in a private 'holding area' to give her time to calm down. but arresting her? that's taking being disruptive in court to the extreme...

A woman jailed for trying to flee the witness box

Contempt of court has consequences, and her accusation/claim of being raped by this man shouldn't mitigate them.

"But I say I am a rape victim!!! I should get away with it!!!" Whatever, bitch...

Did I get the facts straight? Because, in this case, it seems like the allegations she made were false (or not demonstrable to be more accurate) to begin with; and the fact that the guy is a bloody bastard for abusing two girls has nothing to do with the truth of the other allegation. Meh.:confused:

No, there's a huge gap between 'jury not totally convinced' and 'the witness was lying'. Otherwise, every time someone got found not guilty, everyone who'd given evidence against them would be jailed for perjury.

While it is well nigh impossible to sack a judge, it is possible to take away their authority to handle rape cases. (That's assuming Scottish law is similar in this respect to English/Welsh law.) Since this judge doesn't appear to have a clue how to deal with a vulnerable witness, I hope that happens here. In fact, he's not a full time judge (the title QC gives it away, in case you were wondering) so something like this might stop him getting too many more cases of any type.

It seems to me she panicked and tried to flee the witness box because she saw the man she accused of harming her.

Surely there could have been a better way to handle this than to jail her to calm her down?

I would guess it depends on how hysterical she was, if she was refusing to give her testimony, then I think that is well within normal practice to jail someone for no? Can't you be held in contempt of court for not giving your testimony? If someone is going to take up the court's time, I think its quite reasonable what the judge did.

A woman jailed for trying to flee the witness box

Contempt of court has consequences, and her accusation/claim of being raped by this man shouldn't mitigate them.

"But I say I am a rape victim!!! I should get away with it!!!" Whatever, bitch...
Wow, what an unevolved and inhumane comment. Amazing given Sweden's natural superiority to the rest of the known universe in treating people justly.

Wow, what an unevolved and inhumane comment. Amazing given Sweden's natural superiority to the rest of the known universe in treating people justly.

She wasnt Swedish, and therefore is not worthy of compassion from our Scandinavian betters*.

*-Only applies to the Swedes. Sorry Norwegians and Finns, youre just as bad as we are.

No, there's a huge gap between 'jury not totally convinced' and 'the witness was lying'. Otherwise, every time someone got found not guilty, everyone who'd given evidence against them would be jailed for perjury.
I get your point.
Basically, the idea is that the judge didn't take into account the fact that she was scared by the man. Does UK law allow to use testimonies which aren't release directly in front of the judge during the trial?


While it is well nigh impossible to sack a judge, it is possible to take away their authority to handle rape cases.
Oh. In Italy judges get removed to other places, or expelled; but they cannot be suspended from just some kind of trials.

(the title QC gives it away, in case you were wondering)
What does QC mean?

A woman jailed for trying to flee the witness box

Contempt of court has consequences, and her accusation/claim of being raped by this man shouldn't mitigate them.

"But I say I am a rape victim!!! I should get away with it!!!" Whatever, bitch...

Rape victim = bitch?

Have to hope someone has hacked Fass' account...

... I can see putting her in a private 'holding area' to give her time to calm down. but arresting her? that's taking being disruptive in court to the extreme...

I think that to have the police lay hands on someone you have to warrant his arrest.
The jailing part, though, is quite strange - I get that she wasn't convicted of false testimony, or of contempt of court, or of hampering the trial.

I'm utterly perplexed, and sleepy.:confused:

Rape victim = bitch?

Have to hope someone has hacked Fass' account...

Why? Its not like that wasnt perfectly in character.

Basically, the idea is that the judge didn't take into account the fact that she was scared by the man. Does UK law allow to use testimonies which aren't release directly in front of the judge during the trial?

Evidence can be given in, for instance, written form but only if it is not going to be challenged. Obviously, evidence from the alleged victim is almost certainly going to be challenged by the defence.


What does QC mean?

Queen's Counsel. It's a title given to highly qualified lawyers. If that lawyer later becomes a full time judge, they drop the 'QC' and take the title 'His Honour' (or 'Her Honour', of course). All of which means that if you see a judge with QC after their name, they are not a full time judge.

Wow, what an unevolved and inhumane comment.

What a feeble and inconsequentially failed attempt at a reproach. I am not wowed, though.

Amazing given Sweden's natural superiority to the rest of the known universe in treating people justly.

What is the price of tea in Ceylon? It should have risen bearing in mind the precarious situation on the island, but I've heard Colombo, at least, should not have been affected.

Wow, what an unevolved and inhumane comment.

For a moment there, I thought you were talking to me...

The jailing part, though, is quite strange - I get that she wasn't convicted of false testimony, or of contempt of court, or of hampering the trial.


I reckon it would have been contempt of court, though the story didn't make that clear.

Rape victim = bitch?

This particular alleged (not that her "victimhood" has any bearing at all upon her histrionics and bitchcraft) one, yes. The video itself is ample proof (by the by, she really should get treatment for that rosacea), as is her attempt to blame the judge for reprimanding her for her contempt and to deflect attention from her own conduct by trying to curry seemingly very gullible favour.

Have to hope someone has hacked Fass' account...

Permit me, as is my habit, to dash your esperances.

It floors me that anyone would defend a judge for locking up a rape victim. It is extremely traumatic for victims to face the men who violated them in court. That is why in some areas, victims are not required to face the people they accuse. They give testimony via closed circuit TV or being screened in the courtroom.

What I have always found disturbing is that defence attorneys drag rape victims through the mud, hoping to prejudice the jury against the victim, and yet, prior criminal histories (such as peeping tom or other rape convictions) regarding the accused are not admitted out of fear of prejudicing the jury? How is that fair?

Sorry Norwegians and Finns, youre just as bad as we are.

Finland isn't Scandinavian. It's Nordic. So even in your straw man baiting, you continue to perpetuate failure. Chronology, it seems, does not ameliorate or attenuate certain things (but it does seem to rob keyboards of apostrophes). Not that I'd ever expect such.

Finland isn't Scandinavian. It's Nordic. So even in your straw man baiting, you continue to perpetuate failure. Chronology, it seems, does not ameliorate or attenuate certain things (but it does seem to rob keyboards of apostrophes). Not that I'd ever expect such.

Ooooh I need some ice for that burn.

It floors me that anyone would defend a judge for locking up a rape victim.

Alleged, and whose being a victim or not has no exculpatory value when it comes to contempt of court.

Alleged, and whose being a victim or not has no exculpatory value when it comes to contempt of court.

Let's remember it's not the accuser who is on trial. It is the accused. I would imagine that the types of relentless and personal questions that are often asked by defence lawyers in these types of trials to elicit exactly those kind of responses from traumatised victims may have distressed her to the point where she needed escape.

Perhaps if courts were a less traumatic experience for victims of these sorts of crimes, we would not have situations like this.

A woman jailed for trying to flee the witness box

Contempt of court has consequences, and her accusation/claim of being raped by this man shouldn't mitigate them.

"But I say I am a rape victim!!! I should get away with it!!!" Whatever, bitch...

This particular alleged (not that her "victimhood" has any bearing at all upon her histrionics and bitchcraft) one, yes. The video itself is ample proof (by the by, she really should get treatment for that rosacea), as is her attempt to blame the judge for reprimanding her for her contempt and to deflect attention from her own conduct by trying to curry seemingly very gullible favour.

Permit me, as is my habit, to dash your esperances.

Alleged, and whose being a victim or not has no exculpatory value when it comes to contempt of court.

1. I'd love to hear what exactly in the video justifies calling the woman a bitch.

2. Although the charge regarding Ms. Robertson was dropped because of her refusal to finish testifying, the defendant (her uncle) was convicted of raping two children about the time she claims he raped her (when she was 12). So he is clearly more than an alleged rapist and insisting she isn't a victim is rather disingenuous and petty.

3. It is not uncommon for rape victims (or alleged rape victims) to have trouble testifying in court, particularly in the face of aggressive cross-examination. Even assuming the questioning was proper and her actions weren't justified, a wiser judge could have handled the situation with any number of alternatives preferable and more human than arresting Ms. Robertson.

4. Your callous attitude notwithstanding, the circumstance under which the alleged contempt occurred ARE FUCKING RELEVANT to whether the judge acted properly.

5. What exactly did Ms. Robertson try to "get away with"? Her failure to complete her testimony caused the charges related to her to be dropped. Was additionaly punishment necessary to deal with her emotional state?

Is imprisoning people for contempt of court a judgement call for judges? Or is there specific laws regarding contempt where Judges are obliged to imprison someone if they break these laws?

Is imprisoning people for contempt of court a judgement call for judges? Or is there specific laws regarding contempt where Judges are obliged to imprison someone if they break these laws?

I am no expert on the law of Scotland, but contempt charges are at the court's discretion in every jurisdiction of which I am aware. I know of no jurisdiction that has mandatory contempt laws.

Also, with regards to those that condemn this woman, consider these little tidbits:

Ann, who suffers from epilepsy, had a seizure the day after she finished her evidence and blames it on the time she spent in custody.

Labour MSP Margaret Curran said: "This is profoundly shocking. This judge has obviously not listened to any of the guidance given to help protect victims giving evidence."

Scotland has one of the lowest conviction rates for rape in the world - around three per cent of reported cases.

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini said last year that our rape laws were "among the most restrictive in the Western world". She has launched a review of the Sexual Offences Bill to improve conviction rates and the treatment of victims.


Also, the judge in question was a "temporary judge Sheriff" -- whatever that means exactly.

link (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/02/17/exclusive-witness-in-cells-ordeal-after-giving-evidence-in-sex-attack-case-86908-21129866/)

Snip

That's what I said. Not at all as eloquently, or as sensibly as you, but I'm so pleased that my opinion is the same as someone well respected and well-educated.

This particular alleged


Interesting that you feel you need to emphasise the 'alleged' part, and then...


...(not that her "victimhood" has any bearing at all upon her histrionics and bitchcraft)


...proceed to explain how victimhood wouldn't impact your opinion.

It rather looks like you are aware of the faux pas you were party to, and are trying to extricate yourself at the same time you try to excuse yourself.


...one, yes. The video itself is ample proof


... what do you think it's 'ample proof' of? The video doesn't show any histrionics or 'bitchcraft' - unless you have a very low tolerance. Like - 'being female' is enough to qualify.


...(by the by, she really should get treatment for that rosacea), as is her attempt to blame the judge for reprimanding her for her contempt and to deflect attention from her own conduct by trying to curry seemingly very gullible favour.


She said that the judge was 'out of line', and that she felt she'd been treated like the criminal rather than the victim. I'm not sure how that qualifies as 'histrionics' or 'bitchcraft' in your worldview.

Her uncle is accused of raping her, and she fled the box when confronted with him. He was still found guilty of raping two of his other nieces, and the charge of raping her (Ann Robertson) was dropped - he was not found innocent.

Her own 'conduct' may have been unreasoning, but it was not unreasonable. She apparently exhibited a panic reaction (she did testify the following day), and remanding her for contempt is heavy-handed and inappropriate.

That's nothing to do with being 'gullible' - it's a pragmatic concern. Making it harder, or more intimidating, for women to report rape is not a good thing.


Permit me, as is my habit, to dash your esperances.

In this particular case, my esperance would have been mitigation for your heterophobic behaviour. You don't dash my hopes, you reveal an unsavoury something about yourself.

I am no expert on the law of Scotland, but contempt charges are at the court's discretion in every jurisdiction of which I am aware. I know of no jurisdiction that has mandatory contempt laws.


So for people like Fass to defend this, it would follow that they would have to show how the judge's decision was a practical judgement call. Something exceedingly hard to do, if not impossible, as it was clearly a highly impractical decision, given her emotional state, to imprison her.

So for people like Fass to defend this, it would follow that they would have to show how the judge's decision was a practical judgement call. Something exceedingly hard to do, if not impossible, as it was clearly a highly impractical decision, given her emotional state, to imprison her.

With the caveats that there may be something about Scottish law that applies here of which I am unaware, that would be my take on it.

It may be that there are facts that we don't know that would make the judge's decision seem more reasonable, but Fass doesn't know those facts either -- so they can't justify his opinion.

I am no expert on the law of Scotland, but contempt charges are at the court's discretion in every jurisdiction of which I am aware. I know of no jurisdiction that has mandatory contempt laws.

Also, with regards to those that condemn this woman, consider these little tidbits:

Ann, who suffers from epilepsy, had a seizure the day after she finished her evidence and blames it on the time she spent in custody.

Labour MSP Margaret Curran said: "This is profoundly shocking. This judge has obviously not listened to any of the guidance given to help protect victims giving evidence."

Scotland has one of the lowest conviction rates for rape in the world - around three per cent of reported cases.

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini said last year that our rape laws were "among the most restrictive in the Western world". She has launched a review of the Sexual Offences Bill to improve conviction rates and the treatment of victims.


Also, the judge in question was a "temporary judge Sheriff" -- whatever that means exactly.

link (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/02/17/exclusive-witness-in-cells-ordeal-after-giving-evidence-in-sex-attack-case-86908-21129866/)

I'll back that up. Stress and lack of sleep are two of the biggest triggers for seizures.

With the caveats that there may be something about Scottish law that applies here of which I am unaware, that would be my take on it.


Scotland does have special 'Contempt of Court' legislation, but as far as I recall, it is designed to deal with things like media coverage and it's potential to sway juries. (Note: this is based on memory of something that happened almost thirty years ago, so my memory may not be perfect). :)

1. I'd love to hear what exactly in the video justifies calling the woman a bitch.

One example is calling the judge "out of line", when she is the one in contempt.

2. Although the charge regarding Ms. Robertson was dropped because of her refusal to finish testifying, the defendant (her uncle) was convicted of raping two children about the time she claims he raped her (when she was 12). So he is clearly more than an alleged rapist and insisting she isn't a victim is rather disingenuous and petty.

He is not an alleged rapist of those children, but he is an alleged rapist of her. Which makes her an alleged victim. Disingenuous is trying to excuse her behaviour by accepting her label as a victim and that it somehow gives pardon. I accept neither. While you may try to characterise that as "petty", it goes to the very crux of the matter: being gullible enough to buy her "victimhood" and being bamboozled into accepting it as an excuse. You are free to succumb to such frivolousness - indeed a right you often enjoy - and I am free not to cede it to you.

3. It is not uncommon for rape victims (or alleged rape victims) to have trouble testifying in court, particularly in the face of aggressive cross-examination.

Again with the "but it was hard on her, wah, wah, wah". Tonnes of no-longer-alleged rape victims manage not to get themselves into such a tizzy that a judge has to throw them in jail, their emotional distress hardly being less than that of this woman, who found herself in a tough spot and in lieu of sucking it up, by all credible semblance, resorted to infantilism.

Even assuming the questioning was proper and her actions weren't justified, a wiser judge could have handled the situation with any number of alternatives preferable and more human than arresting Ms. Robertson.

What you judge wise holds little of my esteem. I find a reprimand much wiser than coddling of this person particularly.

4. Your callous attitude notwithstanding, the circumstance under which the alleged contempt occurred ARE FUCKING RELEVANT to whether the judge acted properly.

And whose claim do we have of his impropriety? Ah, the hysteric that got herself landed in jail. I shan't be asking your forgiveness when I give this woman no credence.

5. What exactly did Ms. Robertson try to "get away with"? Her failure to complete her testimony caused the charges related to her to be dropped. Was additionaly punishment necessary to deal with her emotional state?

Additional punishment was necessary for her contempt. She's lashing out for getting her knuckles slapped with a ruler, crying "victim, victim!" and so is looking to get away with lacking the shame she should have for being a bitch that got herself thrown in jail during testimony in a child abuse case! That very latter fact makes me even more unwilling to believe that what she did was negligible or deserving of empathy.

It may be that there are facts that we don't know that would make the judge's decision seem more reasonable, but Fass doesn't know those facts either -- so they can't justify his opinion.

Nor can you condemn it, but I don't see you trying to argue that for some reason. Perhaps it's due to your haemorrhaging myocardium. I can be that magnanimous to phrase it so... generously.

Nor can you condemn it, but I don't see you trying to argue that for some reason. Perhaps it's due to your haemorrhaging myocardium. I can be that magnanimous to phrase it so... generously.

Perhaps youre just a misogynist?

Also, with regards to those that condemn this woman, consider these little tidbits:

Ann, who suffers from epilepsy, had a seizure the day after she finished her evidence and blames it on the time she spent in custody.

Ah, using an illness to curry more limp favour. Such a nice, and unflattering (additionally, I mean) pattern you've helped gleam. Thank you for rendering her even less pitiable.

One example is calling the judge "out of line", when she is the one in contempt.

He is not an alleged rapist of those children, but he is an alleged rapist of her. Which makes her an alleged victim. Disingenuous is trying to excuse her behaviour by accepting her label as a victim and that it somehow gives pardon. I accept neither. While you may try to characterise that as "petty", it goes to the very crux of the matter: being gullible enough to buy her "victimhood" and being bamboozled into accepting it as an excuse. You are free to succumb to such frivolousness - indeed a right you often enjoy - and I am free not to cede it to you.

Again with the "but it was hard on her, wah, wah, wah". Tonnes of no-longer-alleged rape victims manage not to get themselves into such a tizzy that a judge has to throw them in jail, their emotional distress hardly being less than that of this woman, who found herself in a tough spot and in lieu of sucking it up, by all credible semblance, resorted to infantilism.

What you judge wise holds little of my esteem. I find a reprimand much wiser than coddling of this person particularly.

And whose claim do we have of his impropriety? Ah, the hysteric that got herself landed in jail. I shan't be asking your forgiveness when I give this woman no credence.

Additional punishment was necessary for her contempt. She's lashing out for getting her knuckles slapped with a ruler, crying "victim, victim!" and so is looking to get away with lacking the shame she should have for being a bitch that got herself thrown in jail during testimony in a child abuse case! That very latter fact makes me even more unwilling to believe that what she did was negligible or deserving of empathy.

Um. Okey dokey. Beyond observing that most of your "answer" is non-responsive, I would note:

1. Your "she was jailed so she must have deserved it" logic is pathetic.

2. Apparently anyone that has ever disagreed with any judge ever is a "bitch" for doing so. I'm pretty sure that makes you a bitch too, Fass.

3. Ms. Robertson is not the sole source of information about this incident.

4. Perhaps you didn't notice but Ms. Robertson was legally anonymous, but has waived that right in order to file a formal complaint against the judge, which is being considered by the proper authorities.

5. It is not at all clear that Ms. Robertson was actually found in contempt, only that she was jailed overnight at the judge's order. You seem to just be assuming that she was charged with and convicted of contempt.

Nor can you condemn it, but I don't see you trying to argue that for some reason. Perhaps it's due to your haemorrhaging myocardium. I can be that magnanimous to phrase it so... generously.

Ugh! "Bleeding heart"? You even embrace the idiom of the rightwing.

Perhaps youre just a misogynist?

And demonstrably you use words that you clearly don't understand.

And demonstrably you use words that you clearly don't understand.

Actually, I understand it 100%. I stand by my observation. I think you're a misogynist.

Ugh! "Bleeding heart"? You even embrace the idiom of the rightwing.

So?

Quick KoL, put an apostrophe in there, before all of his attention is diverted towards the lack of it!

You severely underestimate my attention span. Kindly, do not project.

So?

You need more? Women are bitches, and anyone that says otherwise is a liberal. At least we can rest assured your term will be short, and you'll soon be replaced by a well-spoken coloured gentleman.

So?

Your a misogynist trying to hide behind a veil of righteousness. Frankly its just sad.

Actually, I understand it 100%.

Demonstrating that on one leg, vocabulary, and on the other, maths, are your Achilles' heels.

Demonstrating that on one leg, vocabulary, and on the other, maths, are your Achilles' heals.

Heels.

Ah, using an illness to curry more limp favour. Such a nice, and unflattering (additionally, I mean) pattern you've helped gleam. Thank you for rendering her even less pitiable.

And on that note, such a nice and unflattering pattern you've helped glean. You've managed to render yourself even less pitiable.

Ironic, isn't it?

Demonstrating that on one leg, vocabulary, and on the other, maths, are your Achilles' heals.

How have I failed to demonstrate it? You're acting like a misogynist. I called you on it. Rather then defend yourself, you're going on a tangent about how I dont understand the word Im calling you. I assure you, I do.

You're a misogynist. Or a troll.

Demonstrating that on one leg, vocabulary, and on the other, maths, are your Achilles' heals.

Misogynist = a hater of women (very simplistic definition)
(http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/misogynist)


before you attempt to deflect any more than you already have

Misogynist = a hater of women (very simplistic definition)
(http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/misogynist)


before you attempt to deflect any more than you already have


I wasnt even going to touch the math one. Apperantly 100%=/= completely.

It's so interesting how vitriolic a reaction NSG has to Fass at times. Few other posters can do this (dk being the only one still around I can think of right now).

It's so interesting how vitriolic a reaction NSG has to Fass at times. Few other posters can do this (dk being the only one still around I can think of right now).

Id just ignore him like I normally do if he wasnt acting like he is.

You need more? Women are bitches,

One woman being a bitch makes them all bitches? And I am the one so impotently called "misogynist"...

and anyone that says otherwise is a liberal.

Liberals are rightwingers. So, you claim I use rightwinger terms to call others rightwingers... can you at least try to make some sense? At all? A point would be good, too, but I doubt it feasible.

At least we can rest assured your term will be short, and you'll soon be replaced by a well-spoken coloured gentleman.

Coloured? Nice slur there.

Liberals are rightwingers. So, you claim I use rightwinger terms to call others rightwingers... can you at least try to make some sense? At all?


Why is everyone today confusing the term 'classic liberal' (who are ONLY right wing in an economic sense anyway), with the term 'liberal' in general!

Why is everyone today confusing the term 'classic liberal' (who are ONLY right wing in an economic sense anyway), with the term 'liberal' in general!

I hope this distinction is added to your political venn diagram, along with some colour and interactive elements as requested.

Heels.

Thank you. I wavered between the two, fatigue making me remiss in checking. I appreciate the help.

I hope this distinction is added to your political venn diagram

It already is, TAI made the same mistake (sort of) earlier. :p


, along with some colour and interactive elements as requested.

Nevar! This is politics, fun does not enter into it!

Misogynist = a hater of women (very simplistic definition)
(http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/misogynist)

Thank you. Now, if Knights of Liberty actually manages to understand what that means, you will have succeeded with a very laborious effort, one I never even embarked on due to the high probably of failure. I wish you luck!

One woman being a bitch makes them all bitches? And I am the one so impotently called "misogynist"...


I admit, it was an assumption.

Perhaps you didn't mean women were bitches, just rape victims?


Coloured? Nice slur there.

Slur, in what way?

Thank you. Now, if Knights of Liberty actually manages to understand what that means, you will have succeeded with a very laborious effort, one I never even embarked on due to the high probably of failure. I wish you luck!

I do understand the word. I don't use words I don't understand. Your constant attacks on me don't deflect my accusation, nor make said attacks true, no matter how many times you repeat them.

Nor can you condemn it, but I don't see you trying to argue that for some reason. Perhaps it's due to your haemorrhaging myocardium. I can be that magnanimous to phrase it so... generously.

Um. Of course I'm not condemning the judge's actions based on facts about which I am unaware. :rolleyes: Just as you are claiming the judge acted reasonably based on the known facts, I am condemning his actions based on the known facts. What part of that do you have trouble following?

And, I am so very, very hurt to be called out for having an ounce of understanding and compassion!! :eek:

I admit, it was an assumption.

Perhaps you didn't mean women were bitches, just rape victims?


Just as it is self-evident that she deserved to be jailed, Ms. Robertson no doubt deserved to be raped. :eek:

Why is everyone today confusing the term 'classic liberal' (who are ONLY right wing in an economic sense anyway), with the term 'liberal' in general!

Because the term "liberal" in general refers to "classical liberal". In fact, "classical" isn't even a necessary modification as it's the default meaning of "liberal". It is only if you refer to some other usage of liberal that one needs modifiers.

And, I am so very, very hurt to be called out for having an ounce of understanding and compassion!! :eek:

You confuse "understanding" and "compassion" with "enabling" and "mollification."

Because the term "liberal" in general refers to "classical liberal". In fact, "classical" isn't even a necessary modification as it's the default meaning of "liberal". It is only if you refer to some other usage of liberal that one needs modifiers.

I don't know what to say other than, no, that's generally not the case. At least not today.

Just as it is self-evident that she deserved to be jailed, Ms. Robertson no doubt deserved to be raped. :eek:

I'd call you a misogynist, but I don't know what that word means!:$

Thank you. I wavered between the two, fatigue making me remiss in checking. I appreciate the help.

It was rather amusing, in a punnish fashion. Heels, Achilles Heel, hippocratic chorda, heal.

You confuse "understanding" and "compassion" with "enabling" and "mollification."

I'd be more impressed by your vocabulary if you were using it to respond in a substantive manner, rather than just snarky sniping.

I admit, it was an assumption.

Perhaps you didn't mean women were bitches, just rape victims?

So, by calling this woman, whose rape I have several times referred to as the "alleged rape" that it is, hence not considering her a rape victim, a bitch, you would wish to bring upon this fascinatingly meconium-tinged miscarriage of logic that lies in claiming that I would have somehow called rape victims bitches by, and I have to restate this, calling a single woman whose rape I do not believe in "a bitch"?

I hope you see why the need for you to start making sense still remains prurient.

Slur, in what way?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colored

In the "offensive" sense.

You confuse "understanding" and "compassion" with "enabling" and "mollification."

I'm not even sure you have any concept of the above terms, quite frankly.

I don't know what to say other than, no, that's generally not the case.

Yours is a very parochial sphere of reference. For those of us who manage to have an international one, as these fora happen to be, it is the case. Overwhelmingly so.

So, by calling this woman, whose rape I have several times referred to as the "alleged rape" that it is, hence not considering her a rape victim, a bitch, you would wish to bring upon this fascinatingly meconium-tinged miscarriage of logic that lies in claiming that I would have somehow called rape victims bitches by, and I have to restate this, calling a single woman whose rape I do not believe in "a bitch"?


I'm curious: do you disbelieve all rape victims or just ones you've taken to disliking?

I do understand the word.

Yet you fail to recant. Which shows that DaWoad failed. Pity for him.

Yours is a very parochial sphere of reference. For those of us who manage to have an international one, as these fora happen to be, it is the case. Overwhelmingly so.

As an economics student, who uses all sorts of different writings from all over the world, my sphere of reference is hardly 'parochial'. Regardless, wikipedia is relatively international, yes? If so, then read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

I'm curious: do you disbelieve all rape victims or just ones you've taken to disliking?

Do you believe them all, or just the ones that get the better of your diluted "compassion" and "understanding"?

As an economics student, who uses all sorts of different writings from all over the world, my sphere of reference is hardly 'parochial'. Regardless, wikipedia is relatively international, yes? If so, then read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

Hush. As explained in Through the Looking-Glass: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

I'd be more impressed by your vocabulary if you were using it to respond in a substantive manner, rather than just snarky sniping.

I respond in kind, which would render anything substantive but a broken necklace of pearls at your porcine abattoir. No, I wouldn't even believe you to have live ones, but that's just from experience.

Um. Of course I'm not condemning the judge's actions based on facts about which I am unaware. :rolleyes: Just as you are claiming the judge acted reasonably based on the known facts, I am condemning his actions based on the known facts. What part of that do you have trouble following?

And, I am so very, very hurt to be called out for having an ounce of understanding and compassion!! :eek:

The tragedy is - that understanding and compassion aren't even the best reasons for taking umbrage with the Judge's actions. Scotland has a horrific history on legal prosecution of rape, and this one incident is likely to do more harm, than it will to help. Threats of punishment for victims is hardly going to inspire an increase in reports.

The upside is that there is already something of a movement for reform, and the attention brought to the case by this incident could strengthen that movement, and maybe direct it in a more constructive fashion.

As an economics student, who uses all sorts of different writings from all over the world, my sphere of reference is hardly 'parochial'.

Not "hardly". Curiously.

Do you believe them all, or just the ones that get the better of your diluted "compassion" and "understanding"?

I tend to believe most crime victims*, particularly rape victims -- especially when the "alleged" rapist is convicted of similar crimes.

*That is not to say victims don't lie or can't be wrong, only that they are likely victims, not bitches.

Um. Okey dokey. Beyond observing that most of your "answer" is non-responsive, I would note:

1. Your "she was jailed so she must have deserved it" logic is pathetic.

2. Apparently anyone that has ever disagreed with any judge ever is a "bitch" for doing so. I'm pretty sure that makes you a bitch too, Fass.

3. Ms. Robertson is not the sole source of information about this incident.

4. Perhaps you didn't notice but Ms. Robertson was legally anonymous, but has waived that right in order to file a formal complaint against the judge, which is being considered by the proper authorities.

5. It is not at all clear that Ms. Robertson was actually found in contempt, only that she was jailed overnight at the judge's order. You seem to just be assuming that she was charged with and convicted of contempt.

I respond in kind, which would render anything substantive but a broken necklace of pearls at your porcine abattoir. No, I wouldn't even believe you to have live ones, but that's just from experience.

Clearly I am the one failing to make a substantive defense of my opinion. :rolleyes:

I tend to believe most crime victims*, particularly rape victims -- especially when the "alleged" rapist is convicted of similar crimes.

*That is not to say victims don't lie or can't be wrong, only that they are likely victims, not bitches.

That's because you're a stupid bleeding heart who has compassion and empathy for other living human beings.

Moron.

Fass expresses a highly bigoted opinion then tries to slink out with an attempt at pompous English? Colour me purple.

I tend to believe most crime victims*

Hopefully you will be kept away from a jury in whichever place that has them, then.

So, by calling this woman, whose rape I have several times referred to as the "alleged rape" that it is, hence not considering her a rape victim, a bitch, you would wish to bring upon this fascinatingly meconium-tinged miscarriage of logic that lies in claiming that I would have somehow called rape victims bitches by, and I have to restate this, calling a single woman whose rape I do not believe in "a bitch"?


Your 'belief', like your opinion, is of value only to you.

You say you don't 'consider her a rape victim'.... but the sad truth is that her STATUS as a rape victim doesn't care for your 'consideration'. So whatever you level against her as an 'alleged rape victim', you level against her as a rape victim.

You, yourself, said: "not that her "victimhood" has any bearing at all upon her histrionics and bitchcraft". And you've admitted that it is her emotional reaction and her accusations against the judge that you consider to be the markers of her 'bitchcraft'.

So - emotional responses on the part of rape victims = bitch, in your book.

So - you were lying, then? Or you are now?


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colored

In the "offensive" sense.

Down our way, there is nothing offensive about it. It's considered the 'politically correct' form. Perhaps that's why you needed to find an American English-language dictionary to find it as offensive?

Fass expresses a highly bigoted opinion

You seem to think you claiming it bigoted makes it so. Hah. And with that laugh, it's 03.52 CET and my other task at the computer has finished, so I leave you merry.

Hopefully you will be kept away from a jury in whichever place that has them, then.

Oooh, nice snipping of my post to make it seem like I meant something I specifically denied.

But that is OK, I'm well-known for my disdain of the presumption of innocence.

You seem to think you claiming it bigoted makes it so. Hah. And with that laugh, it's 03.52 CET and my other task at the computer has finished, so I leave you merry.

Ah, yes. Whenever someone actually points out one of your flaws, your response is to mock them and leave.

Hopefully you will be kept away from a jury in whichever place that has them, then.

Do I need to show you statistics about how often people report false rapes, let alone take it to trial?


Its <2%.


That your saying shes making it up just proves my point that youre a misogynist.


Know why I didnt recant? Because I mean it.

Do I need to show you statistics about how often people report false rapes, let alone take it to trial?


Its >2%.


That your saying shes making it up just proves my point that youre a misogynist.


Know why I didnt recant? Because I mean it.

Er... that's a typo, right? Because if not, then it looks like you're saying false rapes are reported more than 2% of the time.

Er... that's a typo, right? Because if not, then it looks like you're saying false rapes are reported more than 2% of the time.



Yes, a HUGE one. Thanks for catching that.

Gentlebeings, please stop hurling dictionaries at each other and return to the original topic, unadorned by extravagant polysyllables.

Or, quit the fancy talk and git down ter brass tacks.

Down our way, there is nothing offensive about it. It's considered the 'politically correct' form. Perhaps that's why you needed to find an American English-language dictionary to find it as offensive?

Agree with everything you've said except the bit I quoted. That term is mostly certainly not used where I live, but it could very well be a regional thing. I don't remember where in the country you're located, but here in the Bay, I believe I'd receive at least a lengthy tongue-lashing for using that term.

Agree with everything you've said except the bit I quoted. That term is mostly certainly not used where I live, but it could very well be a regional thing. I don't remember where in the country you're located, but here in the Bay, I believe I'd receive at least a lengthy tongue-lashing for using that term.

Ah, I'm not a native. I've encountered it in the US as being objectionable (more so in some places than in others), but that was something of a surprise.

Ah, I'm not a native. I've encountered it in the US as being objectionable (more so in some places than in others), but that was something of a surprise.

This is a shot at your state, not you.


Dont you live in Georgia? Its not suprising they consider "colored" the politically correct term.

This is a shot at your state, not you.

Dont you live in Georgia? Its not suprising they consider "colored" the politically correct term.

Here it's tolerated (yes, Georgia). It was less well tolerated up north. But back home in the UK (and again, this could be a regional thing, even in the lil old UK), it is/was(?) considered inoffensive.


(EDIT: Thinking about it - the real surprise is Fass attacking me for a slur on American terms, considering his usual respect for the US, overall.)

Here it's tolerated (yes, Georgia). It was less well tolerated up north. But back home in the UK (and again, this could be a regional thing, even in the lil old UK), it is/was(?) considered inoffensive.

I doubt the UK had the same vitriol attatched to the term as the US did back in the day, so yes its probably a regional thing.

(EDIT: Thinking about it - the real surprise is Fass attacking me for a slur on American terms, considering his usual respect for the US, overall.)

He uses US references and norms when its convient for him to aid in his deflection.

Scotland does have special 'Contempt of Court' legislation, but as far as I recall, it is designed to deal with things like media coverage and it's potential to sway juries. (Note: this is based on memory of something that happened almost thirty years ago, so my memory may not be perfect). :)

Ah, there's contempt of court laws, and then again there's contempt of court by behaviour. The former are covered by things like the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, which restricts what the media can report about a pre-trial hearing. For the latter, if I remember right, a judge or magistrate can impose up to a month in jail, pretty much at their own discretion.

[Standard 'I only know the law of England and Wales, Scottish law might be a bit different' disclaimer applies.]