Mendy not guilty
- Thread starter Modo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I dislike point 2. It's education for the boys to try and tame their libido, but the girls get "avoid dark alleys and talking to strangers".
No, it's entirely a male education issue
I try to teach my kids the 'same' message re: strangers or dangerous areas etc ...
I'm sure you do too ...
I try to relay the same message to my kids, but some messages need to be stressed more to my sons than to your daughters (and the flip side is true too).
True, but I know a bulk of the energy and time should be spent teaching my son. Both will get taught safety when out, he'll be taught not to be a cunt
Yes - agree re: boys ... but that means we have to teach our girls to stay the fuck away from 'the cunts' as they'll always exist, no matter how well some of us try to keep our boys solid, good folk
But I'll also tell my lad to stay away from the cunts. More often than not if someone's willing to rape they're willing to fight.
The importance is teaching the lads not to be cunts. The type that fight when they've had a drink, the type that can't control their anger, the manipulative rapist scumbags.
Just because you don't take adequate care to not be attacked, doesn't mean that the blame should not be on the person who attacks. Sure, people should definitely be taught to avoid dangerous situations, absolutely. It's still the fault of the person that makes the situation dangerous though. If you were to decide on where to focus the education, you should spend 90% of your time on the attackers.
This is my logic. Obviously some degree of common sense should prevail; but it just feels like an extension of victim blaming to weight education of boys and girls the same.
100% mate - but there will always be cunts in the path of life. I'm sure you've been around some, I know I have etc
The attackers are the issue - 100% agree ... but it's not about them in terms of our kids ... and 99% of us as parents doing the right thing won't stop some of us failing (i.e. unfortunately raising cunts) or the other 1% raising cunts too ...
If something God forbid happens to one of our kids because they didn't avoid a situation we tried to teach them not to put themselves in, we'd want to wreck the attacker etc - but we'd never forgive ourselves for a) not protecting our kids and b) not teaching our kids well enough to stay away from these situation.
I disagree. This is dangerous thinking, in my opinion. I'm genuinely in shock when people say things like this. Like LTW says, you'd educate any person to avoid dark alleys, especially people who are less likely to be able to defend themselves in such scenarios! It's OKAY to acknowledge that women need to take more precautions where they go, and with whom, than men.
No. Women should know what might happen if they're with a wrongun, and you ain't teaching a wrongun anything.
It's not an education issue at all. There isn't an obvious point of failure in the system either. You can't prove this without doubt. You can't convict unless you're certain.
Mendy is a sex case but unless he gets caught with his pants down, he's free to be one.
As you missed the point I made, where both men and women should be taught the common sense aspect; as men who rape are also likely to be violent as well (against any gender). whereas a lot more intense education needs to go in to men regarding consent, as it's (a majority of the time), men who rape, or struggle with the concept of consent
For the wrongun aspect, it's more protecting future generations by stymying the development of wronguns
Anyone reporting a rape to the police in the UK has around a 1 in 70 chance of it being charged, and faces a lengthy wait (over two years, on average) in which their entire life is scrutinised and picked apart, before having to recount events in court under cross-examination from their (alleged) assailant's defence lawyer. Victims naturally find this process highly re-traumatising, and many consider it worse than the rape itself. It's hardly surprising, then, that 5 out of 6 rape cases go unreported. What is surprising, however, is that despite this being possibly the most unlikely way you can imagine of trying to make money, that myths and stereotypes about victim credibility (many of which are on display in this thread) are still so entrenched.
I agree with this ...
Totally agree
I agree there's a decent amount of bellends who are rapey, as there will always be sociopaths. I'm very much on the nurture side of the debate, so.i do believe a good amount of changing culture via education should help. But obviously that's just opinion.
I agree men need to hold other men accountable. Fathers doing so with sons. I think you'll only get such education with strong family structures, which I'm not sure is better done in a liberal or conservative household. Probably a balance of both.
But we also have to accept that the world is an unfair and evil place, at times. The fact the inequality exists, means you're always going to have a breakdown of the family structure, which means you'll get crazed men out there, who weren't raised in the same manner you and I may have been.
As a person of colour, I am well aware that I cannot dress however I want without people making assumptions, or even travel to wherever I want; not even in the UK. My parents had "the talk" with me about how to interact with police when I was young, and a large part of that was to avoid getting yourself in trouble, but also to dress, talk and act a certain way, because like it or not, I've come to understand that it matters when you are out in the cold, harsh world. The world is a judgemental place and how we look, how we act and how we dress shapes our reality and the people we encounter. To pretend and not educate our kids like it doesn't matter is dereliction of duty, in my opinion, because in every other area of society we all acknowledge that it does matter.
Similarly, in a perfect world, everyone has educated their sons, and our daughters should have nothing to worry about. But that's not reality. Therefore, one must take extra steps to both protect and educate the most vulnerable. This isn't about victim blaming. No, it's about educating our daughters about the fact that evil men do exist, so she takes steps to reduce her chances of encountering one of them (however large/small; there are no guarantees). We do this so that there's less chance of them becoming victims in the first place, so no cunt on a forum can "blame" them.
Last edited:
I understand and disagree. Yes we don't live in a utopian society and there will always be evil. But I'll be damned if i just accept it.
To focus on this bit; we've heard from someone in this thread who knows a victim, and has clearly said they're not doing it for the money. And yet there's still the belief that a majority of these girls are doing it for money. It's that culture which allows rapists to get away with it. It's that attitude which cultivates rape culture.
I think the money thing is only when the accused is a celeb/sportsperson of some kind. People don't generally say that the average women accusing the average man of rape is money-motivated.
It's only when it's a sportsman or celeb where that's levelled at women. And heh, you are might be correct in that, this is what is allowing these celebs to continually get away with it, because of such thinking.
But let's hypothesise for a second and say that Mendy did in fact rape 2 women, but then 10 women come forward and say he raped them. Sure, in such a scenario, he'd be a rapist, but equally, you could also say the majority of the girls accusing him are doing it for money (jumping on a bandwagon), and they're actually harming the case of the people who actually did suffer, because it's clearly proven 8 out of 10 are lying, people will believe on the balance of probabilities that they are all lying, even if they are not.
I understand the theory that when one person is brave enough to speak out, it can lead to many others being brave enough to come forward. But the domino effect for Mendy was a little wild and in the end, there's not one charge out of many that's been stuck on the man. Usually you'd expect him to be found guilty of at least one offence.
Last edited:
See I think the opposite. Logically if a lot of girls come out, odds are stacked that he's definitely raped some, if not all. The problem is the legal grey areas of he said/she said. And without tangible evidence, it's impossible to prove.
I 100% believe that he is a rapist.
Yeah, I am not so sure. I thought he was initially guilty just because of the amount of charges around his neck, but the fact that not one charge from multiple women stuck, and the verdicts for the most serious charges were deliberated on pretty quickly, I can't be as sure as you to say 100% either way. So I default back to believing that the people who heard the full case/evidence have hopefully made the right decision.
From a guardian article.
Jurors in the rape trial of Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy have been told to question the credibility of their accusers. Lisa Wilding KC, in her closing defence speech on behalf of Mendy’s friend and co-accused, Louis Saha Matturie, highlighted the evidence of one complainant, a 19-year-old woman, who told jurors from the witness box that both men had raped her. But during the 16-week trial, mobile phone video emerged of her having “enthusiastic” sex with Matturie on an occasion she claimed she was being raped. Jurors at Chester crown court were directed to find both men not guilty of those charges against her. Wilding said: “She sat in this courtroom and looked you in the eye and gave what would have, perhaps, been a compelling and convincing account of being raped multiple times by these two men. Like so many of the witnesses in this case, she is caught up in a tangled web of connections and contacts and knowledge. “Why is that important? Because of collusion. You have to consider in respect of each of the women who came to this courtroom to give evidence, is their evidence reliable? Is their evidence solid? “This case rests on the credibility of witnesses. People lie.” Two other complainants, who also knew each other, then made “remarkably similar” allegations that Matturie had raped them both while sleeping, Wilding said. Wilding cited the account of another woman, aged 23, who claimed Matturie raped her at 5.30am in Mendy’s Mercedes car while on a trip to a local garage to buy more alcohol for a party at the footballer’s house. She stayed at Mendy’s house afterwards and had sex with three other men, and as she stepped out of the gates at Mendy’s mansion at 10.03am, sent a text to a friend saying “Hahaha I have slept with Jack Grealish,” the jury heard. Such behaviour was “inconsistent” with an allegation of rape, Wilding said. Her case was “inextricably linked” to that of a 17-year-old who alleges she was raped twice by both Mendy and Matturie the same night, it is alleged. Wilding said the allegation against Matturie, that he raped her in a cinema room at Mendy’s house while others were present, then went to his flat in Manchester where he raped her a second time, made “absolutely no sense”. Voice messages sent to her friends later that same day, where she called the party, the “best night of my life” were, “not a reflection of someone who has been raped,” Wilding added.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...e-trial-told-to-question-accusers-credibility
Make of it what you want
Jurors in the rape trial of Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy have been told to question the credibility of their accusers. Lisa Wilding KC, in her closing defence speech on behalf of Mendy’s friend and co-accused, Louis Saha Matturie, highlighted the evidence of one complainant, a 19-year-old woman, who told jurors from the witness box that both men had raped her. But during the 16-week trial, mobile phone video emerged of her having “enthusiastic” sex with Matturie on an occasion she claimed she was being raped. Jurors at Chester crown court were directed to find both men not guilty of those charges against her. Wilding said: “She sat in this courtroom and looked you in the eye and gave what would have, perhaps, been a compelling and convincing account of being raped multiple times by these two men. Like so many of the witnesses in this case, she is caught up in a tangled web of connections and contacts and knowledge. “Why is that important? Because of collusion. You have to consider in respect of each of the women who came to this courtroom to give evidence, is their evidence reliable? Is their evidence solid? “This case rests on the credibility of witnesses. People lie.” Two other complainants, who also knew each other, then made “remarkably similar” allegations that Matturie had raped them both while sleeping, Wilding said. Wilding cited the account of another woman, aged 23, who claimed Matturie raped her at 5.30am in Mendy’s Mercedes car while on a trip to a local garage to buy more alcohol for a party at the footballer’s house. She stayed at Mendy’s house afterwards and had sex with three other men, and as she stepped out of the gates at Mendy’s mansion at 10.03am, sent a text to a friend saying “Hahaha I have slept with Jack Grealish,” the jury heard. Such behaviour was “inconsistent” with an allegation of rape, Wilding said. Her case was “inextricably linked” to that of a 17-year-old who alleges she was raped twice by both Mendy and Matturie the same night, it is alleged. Wilding said the allegation against Matturie, that he raped her in a cinema room at Mendy’s house while others were present, then went to his flat in Manchester where he raped her a second time, made “absolutely no sense”. Voice messages sent to her friends later that same day, where she called the party, the “best night of my life” were, “not a reflection of someone who has been raped,” Wilding added.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...e-trial-told-to-question-accusers-credibility
Make of it what you want
When you hear details like this, you understand why the prosecution's case fell apart. It also makes you wonder how a person could sit in a courtroom and most likely lie knowing the consequences, and yet, there's unlikely to be any blowback.
The general public, without seeing or hearing any evidence, will still sympathasise with them. Many have made up their minds on Mendy's guilt. "100%". Not even room for 1% of doubt.
Clearly in the case of those girls the case fell apart. What about the others? It's also easy to say in one of those instances because there's video that she wasn't raped. Whos to say he didn't rape her that same evening? Whos to say Mendy didn't rape her still, as that video only shows his friend having sex with her.
It's easy to twist and change the narrative in some cases when you have all the money in the world, and it's a crime with a statistically low conviction rate
It's easy to twist and change the narrative in some cases when you have all the money in the world, and it's a crime with a statistically low conviction rate
It's a "he said she said" crime, and it's impossible to know what actually transpired. We can all assume (yes, maybe my 100% belief is misguided, and it's more 99%) one way or another. For me, i believe he raped one of his accusers at the very least. Others, believe they were probably all liars.
You know it's also possible that's you're just wrong on this one Fabio and these 3 women (out of how many?) simply lied?
One said Matturrie has raped her on a specific occasion, but yet in the video, she's actually having enthusiastic sex with him on that occasion?
Another said that they raped her on specific day at a specific period of time, and yet when she went home, she was texting/laughing about how she had sex with Jack Grealish?
Another said that she got raped twice by Matturie, and travelled with him from one location to another for 2 rapes in 1 day, and yet on the same day she called the party "the best night of my life" in voice messages.
And yet, you hear all of this and you still want to do mental gymnastics to make a Columbo case out of how he could have still done those specific women wrong, when sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one? People lie.
Especially when they're people who know each other and can conspire.
Like I said previously, I wouldn't be so "100%" sure either way, much less without hearing the facts of the case fully. So I tend to believe the jury have made the right decision on this one, from the little I've read about the case. But heh, I'm not here to change your mind.
- Status
