Eleanor Williams

[Lip]

What a terrible thing to do..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64950862

[HiThere]

I read about it earlier. Sounds like she's ruined 3 people's lives.

[ClaretDiver]

I read about it earlier. Sounds like she's ruined 3 people's lives.

More than 3, there were other ‘victims’ as a result of this dirtbags actions…

[Bosscat]

There will be more victims now ... victims who won't come forward for fear of not being believed

[tiger76]

A horrible case although thankfully her lies were exposed, but not before she had severely damaged innocent people's lives and livelihood's.

Perhaps a cursory reminder not to take everything posted on social media at face value.

[fidelcastro]

Her own statement, starting with "I'm not saying I'm guilty" really sums her up.

Why the hell would you do something like that?

[Belial]

A horrible case although thankfully her lies were exposed, but not before she had severely damaged innocent people's lives and livelihood's.

Perhaps a cursory reminder not to take everything posted on social media at face value.

Absolutely. What a rat

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Glad she's been sent to prison, as more often than not the liars get let off.

[SocialistClaret]

Rapists and SA predators will be pointing to this piece of **** and accusing their victim of being another Eleanor Williams, and that some victims will actually fear that and keep quiet in the first place.

[NewClaret]

This, the Greenwood trial collapse, the Mendy acquittal (nearly) make for some very grim reading.

Above all else, the accused need to rights to anonymity until proven guilty.

[Rowls]

There will be more victims now ... victims who won't come forward for fear of not being believed

There very well may be.

But this is why there needs to be due process. We need to remember cases like this (and Carl Beech etc) come up.

Whenever we hear sound bites like “believe all women” or “victims need to be believed” we need to calmly and politely refute it.

We need to search for truth and justice, not take make baseless assumptions.

[Bosscat]

There very well may be.

But this is why there needs to be due process. We need to remember cases like this (and Carl Beech etc) come up.

Whenever we hear sound bites like “believe all women” or “victims need to be believed” we need to calmly and politely refute it.

We need to search for truth and justice, not take make baseless assumptions.

Exactly

[Spiral]

Whenever we hear sound bites like “believe all women” or “victims need to be believed” we need to calmly and politely refute it.

We need to search for truth and justice, not take make baseless assumptions.

Confused as usual. Flawed logic, as usual. The sentences, "believe women" and its variant, "believe all women" as well as "victims need to be believed", the first of which was a prominent political slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement, do not contradict the presumption of innocence, nor do they undermine the principle of due process. The sentence "believe women" demands a presumption in the belief in the accusation such that it be a cause for the process of justice. It does not assume or assert the guilt of the accused. There's no logical necessity linking a belief in the truthfulness with which an accusation is made with with a belief in the guilt of the accused. The foundation of the belief in the truthfulness of an accusation is a belief that the accuser is not acting out of malice. That belief says nothing about the guilt of the accused. The point is to take the accusation made by the accuser at face value, to "believe" that the accusation is not a false one; the point of the slogan is not to imply guilt. From this foundational base, truth and justice are sought. In simple terms it means to take the accusation seriously and subject it to the process of justice. If you draw from the slogans you mentioned that a belief in the truth of an accusation implies guilt, that's because your comprehension is...limited, and you're making leaps in logic. If an accusation logically, by necessity, asserted guilt, there would be no need for due process. But it does not follow that an accusation necessarily equates to guilt, therefore due process is required. So as you can see (or perhaps you can't, because you're you), not only is a belief in an accusation compatible with due process, truth and justice, it is fundamental to the process of justice, for it is from the acceptance of the accusation at face value that the process of justice begins. The face value acceptance of an accusation is not an act which makes a declaration of the truth or falseness of the accusation, merely that an accusation is made and needs to be cause for investigation.

The wider point, which I suspect you're quick to ignore, is that those sentences are political slogans. Functionally they exist as means to political ends. Functionally they do make statements about jurisprudence, but about the rights of 'women' as a political category.

[Spiral]

BTW, this story is ghastly and the woman seems like a complete psychopath.

[SocialistClaret]

There very well may be.

But this is why there needs to be due process. We need to remember cases like this (and Carl Beech etc) come up.

Whenever we hear sound bites like “believe all women” or “victims need to be believed” we need to calmly and politely refute it.

We need to search for truth and justice, not take make baseless assumptions.

When someone says "believe women" that doesn't mean you have to believe them no matter what. The "unless you have a specific reason not to" is implied.

You're capable of holding this exact standard for literally every other aspect of life, so why not with sexual assault? This is a rhetorical question.

[Jakubclaret]

What a terrible thing to do..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64950862

It's not good in any shape or form what's happened but from the sounds of it she's been accordingly punished & society will be safer as a result of that.

[Clovius Boofus]

Whenever we hear sound bites like “believe all women” or “victims need to be believed” we need to calmly and politely refute it.

It means that all accusations should be thoroughly investigated. This didn't happen with the grooming gang victims in Rochdale, Rotherham, Huddersfield etc, along with many other victims of sexual violence, who were simply dismissed for way too long. I'm very surprised this needs spelling out to you.

Let's not go backwards because of the likes of this Ellie Williams nutter. I'm sure if a family member or friend of yours was sexually assaulted, you would want the police to "believe all women" unless, once investigated, it was found otherwise.

[AlargeClaret]

It means that all accusations should be thoroughly investigated. This didn't happen with the grooming gang victims in Rochdale, Rotherham, Huddersfield etc, along with many other victims of sexual violence, who were simply dismissed for way too long. I'm very surprised this needs spelling out to you.

Let's not go backwards because of the likes of this Ellie Williams nutter. I'm sure if a family member or friend of yours was sexually assaulted, you would want the police to "believe all women" unless, once investigated, it was found otherwise.

Or perhaps a son or family member sent on remand to prison as a sex offender for ludicrously trumped up charges ? I’m 100% behind the seriousness and thoroughness of the police in reported sex crimes , but the “ women MUST be believed mantra “ ( no issue with that ) has to be tempered by at least anonymity until conviction and equal thoroughness on the defendant. The police seem oblivious to their preposterous investigation re: suspects lives destroyed and are wallowing in the ( correct) conviction of the mentally ill woman . A bunch of high school kids could have seen through her story .

[TsarBomba]

It sounds quite cold and disconnected to say this, but as a Police Officer, you shouldn’t really believe anyone. It doesn’t and shouldn’t really come into an officers thought process.

I take an allegation at face value, and once a crime is alleged, I am duty bound to record that crime in line with National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS). That crime will be investigated until all lines of enquiry have been extinguished, and a decision will be made on the evidence garnered.

It’s important as an officer to remain impartial, and to police without fear or favour.

I am concerned that there are police forces being swayed on policy or decision making, by outside political movements or social pressures, which absolutely should not happen.

[HiThere]

One woman posted on social media about how some men found guilty of this doesn't get that long a sentence. But although both crimes are related, they are still different. You can't compare one to the other in terms of sentencing. What this person did has still ruined many lives beyond repair.

[Goddy]

I'm sure if a family member or friend of yours was sexually assaulted, you would want the police to "believe all women" unless, once investigated, it was found otherwise.
[/quote]

I'm sure, too, if a family member or friend of yours was falsely accused of such a serious crime you would wish the police/CPS to fully investigate and then take no further action rather than be convicted by 'the court of public opinion' as currently appears to happen at the moment (see this thread for evidence of that).

I feel sorry for the likes of Tsar Bomba who have to investigate such things. It does seem that the pressure from public opinion is on to secure a conviction rather than seek the truth (which is why the police in Barrow did what they did, I suppose, in terms of making arrests etc).

[Rowls]

It sounds quite cold and disconnected to say this, but as a Police Officer, you shouldn’t really believe anyone. It doesn’t and shouldn’t really come into an officers thought process.

I take an allegation at face value, and once a crime is alleged, I am duty bound to record that crime in line with National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS). That crime will be investigated until all lines of enquiry have been extinguished, and a decision will be made on the evidence garnered.

It’s important as an officer to remain impartial, and to police without fear or favour.

I am concerned that there are police forces being swayed on policy or decision making, by outside political movements or social pressures, which absolutely should not happen.

Excellent post.

[Herts Clarets]

It sounds quite cold and disconnected to say this, but as a Police Officer, you shouldn’t really believe anyone.

And from recent events that includes serving Police Officers....

[TsarBomba]

And from recent events that includes serving Police Officers....

Yep, there are some bad apples in the police service that need rooting out, and from what I see and hear on a daily basis, that is happening.

But it would be a gross mistake to tarnish all police officers. I work with some wonderful people.

Just as it would be a mistake to tarnish all Burnley fans after recent events at Blackpool.

[aggi]

I'm sure, too, if a family member or friend of yours was falsely accused of such a serious crime you would wish the police/CPS to fully investigate and then take no further action rather than be convicted by 'the court of public opinion' as currently appears to happen at the moment (see this thread for evidence of that).

I feel sorry for the likes of Tsar Bomba who have to investigate such things. It does seem that the pressure from public opinion is on to secure a conviction rather than seek the truth (which is why the police in Barrow did what they did, I suppose, in terms of making arrests etc).

Given the conviction rate is something like 1% it seems like this isn't done either.

There does need to be some thought to anonymity of accused as well as accusee though. Although I've no idea whether there is a significant increase in convictions due to other victims coming forward after the accused is named. A slightly less rabid press would probably also help.

[pushpinpussy]

I am shocked at the leniency of this sentence. I will not be surprised to see the CPS appeal it.

[basil6345789]

I can't understand how she created this "gang" of men she accused! Did she pick them individually out of yellow pages then mould them together or were they already a walking football team or walking group?

[Goddy]

Given the conviction rate is something like 1% it seems like this isn't done either.

There does need to be some thought to anonymity of accused as well as accusee though. Although I've no idea whether there is a significant increase in convictions due to other victims coming forward after the accused is named. A slightly less rabid press would probably also help.

...and therein lies the problem, aggi. Speaking with a chum who's a criminal lawyer, I asked why more of these (Eleanor Williams) cases weren't forthcoming given the low conviction rate for domestic abuse/rape etc. As he said to me, and ai paraphrase his words...'it's a very difficult case to prove (rape) one way and equally it's a very difficult case to prove the other way (a false accusation). The effect on the individuals is remarkably similar (female and male) though i.e. a feeling of being let down, lack of closure, being judged by society, feeling of being violated, not sleeping, enormous mental damage etc etc'

I totally agree about the media, though, which is, in my view out of control and unable to present stories in a critical i.e. unbiased, way

[SocialistClaret]

Came at the worst time for me as i had left one job to start another, which then got withdrawn. But locking down was definitely the right thing to do, and should've have been done sooner than it eventually was. We surely lost thousands because of we locked down pretty late.

[SocialistClaret]

Can a mod delete my previous reply? It was intended for another thread.