Ched Evans

[eFestivals]

That's a crass generalisation! I'd like to think that most women would have reported the little sicko.

which presumably means that you do think women have working brains and self-responsibility after all? Glad we've cleared that up.

So the issue with Watkins was those two particular women and how they reacted, and not that Watkins was asking. People ask others to do the wrong thing all the time; the doing what they ask is the responsibility of that do-er, not the asker - becauise we believbe that pe3ople have responsibility for their own actions.

(if we believe that they don't have that responsibility, then how could Evans be responsible for his raping?)

[eFestivals]

I think it's the case that they were Lostprophets fans, so would Ian Watkins being the lead singer of Lostprophets have put him in a different position to influence and manipulate these two specific women (read these two, not every single female) compared to if he were a bin man or student?

Awww, poor helpless little women led astray by the big nasty man.

FFS. And people wonder why misogyny has the upper hand in our society?

[feral chile]

Well in that case yes I agree, although I'd imagine that the vast majority of them are just keyboard warriors.

Anyway I think the rape threats you're referring to were amade by people opposed to Evans signing for Oldham, not his 'supporters'.

Yeah, that's what I meant by not making sense, I edited it.

[eFestivals]

Yes, that's it exactly. I know doctors and teachers are specific professions that are regulated, but it's because of the power relationship.

I don't think it would be possible to regulate all power relationships, obviously, but I can see why parallels could be drawn with the relationshp between fans and their idol. It's hardly equal in terms of the power and influence ratio is it!

Doctors and teachers have that power relationship defined in law, granting them powers above society's norms.

It's because of that *formal* power they have that formal contra-powers need to also be there for protection of wider society.

Passing the same idea onto a celebrity is a person handing over their own intelligence for self-keeping by that other.

You might be thick as pig shit and doing that, but I'm not and i'm not going to stand back and have another's lack of intelligence formally reduce my own.

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Awww, poor helpless little women led astray by the big nasty man.

FFS. And people wonder why misogyny has the upper hand in our society?

Read my above link. Ian Watkins could have been stopped sooner.

I'll leave it to others to generalise about the police.

[feral chile]

Doctors and teachers have that power relationship defined in law, granting them powers above society's norms.

It's because of that *formal* power they have that formal contra-powers need to also be there for protection of wider society.

Passing the same idea onto a celebrity is a person handing over their own intelligence for self-keeping by that other.

You might be thick as pig shit and doing that, but I'm not and i'm not going to stand back and have another's lack of intelligence formally reduce my own.

What powers do they have that's relevant to rape?

[feral chile]

which presumably means that you do think women have working brains and self-responsibility after all? Glad we've cleared that up.

So the issue with Watkins was those two particular women and how they reacted, and not that Watkins was asking. People ask others to do the wrong thing all the time; the doing what they ask is the responsibility of that do-er, not the asker - becauise we believbe that pe3ople have responsibility for their own actions.

(if we believe that they don't have that responsibility, then how could Evans be responsible for his raping?)

Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was victim to the winner takes the spoils culture.

[eFestivals]

Read this and then tell me being a celebrity is irrelevant to sex charges:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jailed-pop-star-ian-watkins-8394464

a celebrity is irrelevant to sex charges.

Could all of the same things have happened if he was Joe Bloggs? Yes they could, as proven by the many similar cases that happen with Joe Bloggs.

It it the choice of those females to do what they chose to do. They were not forced or compelled.

As it happens, i know a bit more than just the public domain stuff on this case, and i know that you couldn't be more wrong about what was going on.

[zahidf]

Je Suis Ched

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2015/01/12/gordon-taylor-launches-footballers-campaign-je-suis-ched/

[feral chile]

a celebrity is irrelevant to sex charges.

Could all of the same things have happened if he was Joe Bloggs? Yes they could, as proven by the many similar cases that happen with Joe Bloggs.

It it the choice of those females to do what they chose to do. They were not forced or compelled.

As it happens, i know a bit more than just the public domain stuff on this case, and i know that you couldn't be more wrong about what was going on.

ok fair enough, it's difficult to discuss if there's some stuff that can't be discussed.

But hypothetically, if a person's accusations are ignored because the accused is seen to be a victim of harassment, like by a stalker fan, do you not think that would then be relevant? That a celebrity (or politician) can start to think they're untouchable, nobody will believe any accusations etc.?

Joe Bloggs is unlikely to think they're above the law, unless again they have some kind of unequal power situation with their accuser, so that the credibility of their testimony is in doubt.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Read my above link. Ian Watkins could have been stopped sooner.

I'll leave it to others to generalise about the police.

Only when we say women are responsible for themselves will others take them in a responsible way.

For all the while society believes them as somehow lesser than men they will be treated as lesser than men.

As for the police: it's long been known there is no organisation more sexist.

What Watkins got away with wasn't because he was famous, it was because he was a man.

[mrtourette]

Awww, poor helpless little women led astray by the big nasty man.

FFS. And people wonder why misogyny has the upper hand in our society?

Yes misogyny has the upper hand in our society because of the potential that in one specific case a man manipulated a women. How sexist to even consider such a possibility.

[eFestivals]

Joe Bloggs is unlikely to think they're above the law, unless again they have some kind of unequal power situation with their accuser, so that the credibility of their testimony is in doubt.

Evans doesn't think himself above the law, from anything and everything in the public domain about that case.

Watkins might have thought himself above the law, but him being in jail proves he was mistaken.

Yes, he was on a power trip and others handed him their own self-powers for his control, but HE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THEIR SELF-POWERS WITHOUT THEM ALLOWING IT.

Responsibility for self-actions puts all of the blame for their actions on just them. Your view has them bearing no responsibility for their actions, cos the nasty man made them do it.

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Yes misogyny has the upper hand in our society because of the potential that in one specific case a man manipulated a women. How sexist to even consider such a possibility.

Or how sexist your own words? Perhaps?

Can anyone make you do something you don't* wish to do?

(* excluding the 'gun to the head' type scenarios).

If they can, you're weaker than me.

Why should I have my rights lessened because you're too weak to stand up for yourself? It's your rights that would need lessening in those circumstances, and not mine.

You know, just as a child has less rights than an adult.

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

a celebrity is irrelevant to sex charges.

Could all of the same things have happened if he was Joe Bloggs? Yes they could, as proven by the many similar cases that happen with Joe Bloggs.

Of course it could, but you're talking about hypotheticals. Did it is this particular case?

Just because Joe Bloggs has been involved in similar cases doesn't mean that celebrity is irrelevant to every other case that ever happens. You have to consider the possibility.

It it the choice of those females to do what they chose to do. They were not forced or compelled.

As it happens, i know a bit more than just the public domain stuff on this case, and i know that you couldn't be more wrong about what was going on.

Well that changes everything, you're able to tailor your general argument to match the specifics that only you know, safe in the knowledge that you're right.

I think we now have to assume in this case the celebrity/profession of Ian Watkins didn't come into play, and therefore nobody is ever starstruck or allows themselves to be taken advantage of by a celebrity in a way that they wouldn't by a member of the public.

[feral chile]

Evans doesn't think himself above the law, from anything and everything in the public domain about that case.

Watkins might have thought himself above the law, but him being in jail proves he was mistaken.

Yes, he was on a power trip and others handed him their own self-powers for his control, but HE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THEIR SELF-POWERS WITHOUT THEM ALLOWING IT.

Responsibility for self-actions puts all of the blame for their actions on just them. Your view has them bearing no responsibility for their actions, cos the nasty man made them do it.

Yes, I admit I'm conflicted about this, I've said so regarding the drunk-rape thing.

But what empowers women more, saying they should have taken more precautions/resisted more/self imposed a curfew etc. etc.? That puts the responsibility for their own safety squarely on women, and means that rapists would pretty much have to be violent strangers.

Or saying that rape is wrong, raping a drunk is wrong.

in the same way, women should take responsibility for their own choices.

But what about vulnerable people, men or women, who are enamoured by celebrities taking an interest in them?

It's not just celebrities, of course, but the types of personality who become obsessed fans are more likely to be socially withdrawn, which is why they've formed a romantic obsession with a complete stranger in the first place.

(I accept that in the Ian Watkins case, these women must have been capable of forming 'normal' social relationships).

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Or how sexist your own words? Perhaps?

Can anyone make you do something you don't* wish to do?

(* excluding the 'gun to the head' type scenarios).

If they can, you're weaker than me.

Why should I have my rights lessened because you're too weak to stand up for yourself? It's your rights that would need lessening in those circumstances, and not mine.

You know, just as a child has less rights than an adult.

Why exclude gun to your head situations? There's still a choice, you can't have it both ways. Choices don't have to be pleasant. You choose your response, not the options themselves.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[mrtourette]

Or how sexist your own words? Perhaps?

Not at all. Is it sexist to suggest that a woman was taken advantage of by a man? Or that it's a possibility that it could happen? I suppose it's racist to entertain the possibility that a black person could have committed a crime, or ageist to suggest that an old person was involved in a car accident.

Can anyone make you do something you don't* wish to do?

(* excluding the 'gun to the head' type scenarios).

If they can, you're weaker than me.

Many people can make many other people do something they don't wish to do. History has shown that. Does that mean they're weaker than you? Yes, but I don't really see what relevance that has. Some people are weak, some are strong, some are good manipulators, some allow themselves to be manipulated. I'm not saying those women didn't want to do what they did, I'm just saying that without further details (which you now claim to have, that none of us are privvy to) it's not unreasonable to suggest that Watkins' celebrity, status and the access that could have given him to the women could have played apart in either i) what happened or ii) how he came to be involved.

Why should I have my rights lessened because you're too weak to stand up for yourself? It's your rights that would need lessening in those circumstances, and not mine.

You know, just as child has less rights than an adult.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if it's that Watkins' rights were affected by the assmption that he was 100% responsible for what happened and none of the responsibility should be on your women thes yes of course you're right. The argument is that it isn't 100% one way of 100% the other; yes it couldn't have happened without the consent of the women, but it also couldn't have happened without Ian Watkins. Would they have found someone else to commit these despicable crimes? We don't know, so can only speculate on a variety of motivations and enablers (although it appears you now have more information than we ever could).

[eFestivals]

Of course it could, but you're talking about hypotheticals. Did it is this particular case?

Just because Joe Bloggs has been involved in similar cases doesn't mean that celebrity is irrelevant to every other case that ever happens. You have to consider the possibility.

and yet 'celebrity' can only ever be of relevance if a 'normal' person grants that 'celebrity' extra status.

It's not the celebrity that takes it, its the normal person that gives it away.

Well that changes everything, you're able to tailor your general argument to match the specifics that only you know, safe in the knowledge that you're right.

I didn't say i knew everything, and I don't.

I know enough to know that what has been suggested is completely wrong. The girls did what they did because it suited them, and not because it suited Watkins (tho of course it did).

Watkins could only ask, and while the asking is bad, asking makes nothing happen. Bad things could only happen with the girls' say-so.

I think we now have to assume in this case the celebrity/profession of Ian Watkins didn't come into play,

it came into play, but *ONLY* because of what the girls were thinking.

If I were to wave money around for someone to commit a criminal act, I'm sure most people would say no, but i'm also sure (dependent on the amount) that someone would say yes.

Me waving the money makes nothing happen. It's the acceptance of that money that is the cause of the crime.

No one would accept a defence in court of "I couldn't turn the money down" for why they committed a crime (outside of the "desperate, needed to feed my family" sort-of thing). Apply the same thinking to the Watkins case.

and therefore nobody is ever starstruck or allows themselves to be taken advantage of by a celebrity in a way that they wouldn't by a member of the public.

People get drunk and drive cars. Does them being starstuck by the drink count for anything, or does self-responsibility stop that being an acceptable defence?

It's really nothing different with Watkins. The buck stops with a person's responsibility for their own actions.

[eFestivals]

But what empowers women more, saying they should have taken more precautions/resisted more/self imposed a curfew etc. etc.? That puts the responsibility for their own safety squarely on women, and means that rapists would pretty much have to be violent strangers.

I know of women who willing shagged blokes, and then the next morning claimed it didn't count for whatever reason they self-invented for why they'd done something they later regretted.

They are trying to lay-off their responsibility for doing something 'bad' onto the other person involved. Why should that be in any way acceptable?

Or saying that rape is wrong, raping a drunk is wrong.

Rape IS wrong, and raping a drunk IS wrong.

But what, precisely, is "drunk"?

It's easy enough with the difference between 100% sober and 100% trashed, but real life is not like that.

[eFestivals]

Why exclude gun to your head situations?

that is "force". It's a clearly recognised and long defined idea in law, one that we all recognise.

Being concerned that saying 'no' might make matey not like you any longer is not anything like the same thing, unless we're to have a new and insane structure of society.

[mrtourette]

and yet 'celebrity' can only ever be of relevance if a 'normal' person grants that 'celebrity' extra status.

It's not the celebrity that takes it, its the normal person that gives it away.

Can't disagree with that. Some 'celebrities' will take advantage of the status they are afforded, but yes that's only possible if the person involved affords them a status that can be abused.

I guess I disagree that you can always hold someone responsible for that weakness. What if they were an easily-manipulated person due to abuse as a child, or some other series of events stretching back to a time when their education and socialisation was out of their control. Would it still be fair to say to someone "you're weak, why should I suffer for your weakness or be held fully accountable when you were compliant because of your weakness"? I'm thinking of things other than this particular case, not these women.

it came into play, but *ONLY* because of what the girls were thinking.

If I were to wave money around for someone to commit a criminal act, I'm sure most people would say no, but i'm also sure (dependent on the amount) that someone would say yes.

Me waving the money makes nothing happen. It's the acceptance of that money that is the cause of the crime.

No one would accept a defence in court of "I couldn't turn the money down" for why they committed a crime (outside of the "desperate, needed to feed my family" sort-of thing). Apply the same thinking to the Watkins case.

Yeah I guess that makes sense, but only if you see him as a deranged monster with no self-control who couldn't possibly hope to have any say in whether he commited the crime or not once the women had alluded to their compliance. He has to take some responsibility here, the door may have been opened but he wasn't pushed through, he chose to walk through.

Or did he? Maybe he's the victim here, a minor pervert with a drug issue who was manipulated by these women into performing horrific acts for their own satisfaction. You know more than me, maybe I'm leaning too heavily on the court verdict.

You waving the money does play a part in something happening, it may not be the final decider but while "I couldn't turn the money down" isn't an acceptable defense neither is "I only offered the single Dad with four kids who is up to his eyeballs in debt and about to lose his house a million pounds to beat someone up, it's not my fault he accepted".

Also the difference is that once he'd 'waved the money' and got acceptance he then still had to carry out his part, it's not the same as paying someone to commit a crime. It's a more complicated situation than that.

People get drunk and drive cars. Does them being starstuck by the drink count for anything, or does self-responsibility stop that being an acceptable defence?

It's really nothing different with Watkins. The buck stops with a person's responsibility for their own actions.

Well I wouldn't consider being drunk and being starstruck as the same thing, as one is a defined physical reaction which can be tested and the other is a complicated mental reaction that can manifest itself over a number of occasions or a long time period and may not even be a conscious state of mind.

Anyway yes everybody has responsibility for their actions, I am in no way defending these women. What they allowed to happen to their childeren is deplorable, it's just specualtion as to why they allowed it to happen and to whether Watkin's profession/status allowed him into a situation that he may not otherwise have been able to get into.

[eFestivals]

Does that mean they're weaker than you? Yes,

Glad we've sorted that part.

but I don't really see what relevance that has.

if someone asks you to kill your mum and you do, it her murder your fault or theirs?

it's not unreasonable to suggest that Watkins' celebrity, status and the access that could have given him to the women could have played apart in either i) what happened or ii) how he came to be involved.

I've not said it's unreasonable to suggest that celebrity played its part. I've said it's unreasonable to suggest that it absolves anyone of anything of their bad actions.

Watkins was not compelling them to do anything. Those women freely chose to do what they did, (tho at his suggestion).

The suggestion is bad, of course. But it causes no harm to the kids that ultimately became his victims; that required the women to make their own free choices.

And i assure you, they 100% chose to do what they did.

I'm not sure what you're saying here

I'm saying nothing about Watkins here.

I'm saying that if some people are as mentally weak as children as some here are saying, then lets have the *FULL* laws in place which stipulate that they are, to give them the protections that they need.

That sets me free to leave those 'kids' to play with each other as kids, and those with self-responsibility to play with each other too. We'd know where we all stood, instead of making up contrary and conflicting laws which undermine some of the basics of the majority of our legal system.

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

if someone asks you to kill your mum and you do, it her murder your fault or theirs?

It's yours. If someone asks you if they can kill your mum and you say yes, is her murder your fault or theirs?

[eFestivals]

What if they were an easily-manipulated person due to abuse as a child

I would say that anyone who grants the famous a special status is acting out the consequences of being mentally abused. A need for approval, a need to be loved.

We don't cure that by action against the famous, we cure that by action against the abusers.

And we start that by making *clear* that we do not recognise any special status for the famous, so that an abuser's take on things has a lesser on-going impact on their victims. The victims will (largely, if not exclusively) take their cue from society and not from their abuser.

All of the while we hold up the famous as special, we hand them the power and opportunity to abuse if they wish to, by telling the victims to submit to the abuse by someone special.

We will not break that cycle by digging ourselves deeper into it.