|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I am not minimising the crime of rape. What worries me in this story is the doubt it inspires in me and the fact that the older boy is likely to be convicted because the younger was younger, not because, necessarily, of the facts of the case. He appears to have given the younger a blow hob and a hand job.
If the younger was unwilling, or said no, then my attitude is different. But if, as it may appear, there is a likelihood that he wanted the acts and decided later that it had been an error, then what?
And what will a jury do?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
The problem with news stories of all kinds nowadays (and maybe it was always the case) is that we never get the full story. That's probably mainly due to sloppy journalism. We don't have all the evidence that will be presented to a jury, so we're left to speculate.
We are told as fact that the accused actor is still under 18 and the alleged offences took place 2.5 years ago (July-Sept 2010), so at the time he was no older than 15, and if he was 15 then he must have recently turned 15. We are also told that the alleged victim was 14 at the time.
Thus, the idea of an 'older boy' and 'younger boy' seems to be pretty meaningless when, as seems likely, the age difference is less than 12 months.
Now some speculation:
If it's true that the 'younger boy' was making allegations about the actor around the school, and that he'd mentioned them to his friend in a "jokey, matey sort of way", it seems odd to me that it didn't become a police matter until after he got punched in the face for spreading allegations around school. Surely he can't have been too ashamed to report the alleged rape officially if he was talking about it around the school.
Also, I presume that the actor's alleged girlfriend (or girl friend?), to whom he claims to have talked about the incidents, will be giving evidence. Allegedly, she asked the actor to prove what he'd told her and at some stage he began to do so while she watched, but the then he stopped because he was embarrassed at her seeing him. It seems unlikely that the actor would tell his girlfriend (or girl friend?) that he'd sexually assaulted another boy and then force that unwilling boy to endure a sexual act while his she was watching. Anyway, it would be interesting to find out what she her evidence is, because she would know whether it was forced or willing.
So, based on the article, we have:
two boys of similar age (14-15) having a couple of sexual contacts;
one partial contact seen by the alleged attacker's girlfriend (or girl friend?);
the alleged victim spreads allegations around school and tells his friend, but but doesn't report it to the authorities until he gets punched for spreading the allegations.
Based on the information in the article, if I were on the jury, I know what verdict I'd reach.
So, after much rambling, to address Timmy's point:
Such stories worry me, too.
One has to wonder if this case would ever have been brought to court if there wasn't the current climate of suspecting paedophilia everywhere. Two boys of similar age, 14-15, have a couple of sexual encounters and there appears to be no evidence of force or coercion. This gives me an uneasy feeling that police and prosecutors are becoming overzealous today because in the past they didn't properly investigate or prosecute real cases of child rape. One also wonders if this case would have been brought to trial if the alleged perpetrator hadn't been an actor.
[Updated on: Fri, 22 March 2013 11:37] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... always bringing to my mind a similar one that occurred here in Toronto nearly 20-years ago it would be; one that became a national media feeding frenzy; one that nearly ruined the reputations of just about everyone who had a hand in reporting it; one that took nearly 10-years to come to trial and a rendered satisfied judgement.
The simplest facts of the case were this:
1) A 19-year youth worked at a major sports and concert entertainment venue in downtown Toronto
2) A 16-year old who frequented the complex wanted tickets to a forthcoming concert but didn't have the money to pay for them
3) The 16-year old youth then had sex with the 19-year old who gave him the tickets
4) The 19-year old, for a number of years prior to this, had apparently been in the habit of providing similar services to this same youth (and others) under similar circumstances
5) The 16-year old, 30-odd years later, somewhat in a peak of conscious and therapy (and gay revulsion) accuses the then 50-odd year old man of raping him.
What made this particularly odious was how the media generally handled the story. What should have been a story of consensual fee-for-services rendered sex between two youths of similar age became a man in his mid-fifties raping a child of not quite age-16. Moreover a major detergent manufacturer (then the largest commercial-time purchaser in Canada, and likely elsewhere who were then responsible for buying 2-minutes out of every 3 of paid air time) itself embroiled in it's own media circus over the branding of two of it's flag-ship trademarks and two situation comedies being broadcast by North American television networks, threatened to withdraw it's paid commercial support of the Canadian networks unless they continually slammed home that it was a 50-odd year old man and a teen-aged boy; not the truer facts of the matter, these being that there little or no age difference between the two youths at the time of the alleged offense.
This situation prevailed for nearly 6-months until the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) who up until this time had had little to say about the whole thing blew the whistle just before the trial commenced reporting the advertiser for its' behaviour to the Broadcast Standards Council and the Canadian Radio and Television Commission.
Now to be completely fair to the advertiser, and something that came out during hearings later held regarding this, the manufacturer had been subject to a very unfriendly takeover bid by a group flush with monies generated by several well-known Evangelical Christian organizations, the same group that had previously gotten control of the Coca-Cola and Disney Companies in the 1980's and were at one and the same time attempting to get control of the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) in the U.S. and trying to leverage political influence but getting no where fast in Canada, they having then recently been thrown off all Canadian public broadcast channels for trying to slam a fundamentalist agenda through their purchase of large blocks of air-time at one and the same time across every television channel, forcing Canadians to view and listen simply because theirs was the only programmes being aired at that time on each and every available channel for sometimes up to 5- or 6-hours in a given time-zone. It was (and remains so today) this group's sole purpose to "sell" their extreme fundamentalist view-point on a disparate number of contentious same-sex (and other) issues. They wanted the story of sex between these two youth reported in a particular manner and they were going to get it regardless of the cost financially or personally, and they damned near succeeded. Unfortunately the lives of two people, the boy who apparently committed the offense and his accuser, both now in their late 40's and early 50's, and the lives of uncounted numbers of talking-heads and columnists became the subject of derision and subject to extreme prejudice affecting their livelihoods.
Ultimately something good came out of this. Firstly, the Evangelical Groups are now treated as a combined consortium in Canada. Public opinion (and threats of government interference) forced the Evangelicals to divest themselves of their controlling interests and holdings in that detergent manufacturer, Coca-Cola, ABC and The Disney companies. They have been forced to purchase their own television network and may only obtain air-time on competing Canadian networks for no more than one-hour at a time, and then only one channel at a time, and will never again dominate the public domain air-waves north of the 49th parallel. Secondly, the controversy in Canada regarding the Catholic Church and their priests and pædophilia were subject to a more jaundiced eye in reports filed by the media in general and television in particular, with far and away much less hysteria being attached to each and every subsequent and new incident being revealed. The detergent company some 20-years later has morphed into becoming one of the biggest champions of diversity and equal-rights globally.
Yes, stories such as this one emerging in the United Kingdom do bother me. Sex amongst children (youths?) and those inter-generational between youths and adults are hot button topics. People generally are lit up when ever discussion arises over this topic. I don't see it changing soon either. One will, I fear, always have to remain circumspect in gathering the facts regarding any such occurrences. Too, drama and folly will always follow those involved in these circumstances with the youngest likely to recant their voluntary participation on their sober second thought. Seldom does anything good come from them.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
[Updated on: Fri, 22 March 2013 14:06] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON
March 22, 2013
Dear Kitzyma,
The problem with your statement: "The problem with news stories of all kinds nowadays (and maybe it was always the case) is that we never get the full story. That's probably mainly due to sloppy journalism. We don't have all the evidence that will be presented to a jury, so we're left to speculate," is that you're generalising & somewhat incorrect.
I've been a journalist for 3+ decades & in that time I have seen dramatic changes in how the news is delivered. The reporters work very hard to assemble the facts and write, but then it is left up to the editors to shape those stories into the final versions that ultimately are presented to the readers.
Since the advent of the 24/7 newscycle and nearly instantaneous posting on the web, there are considerable details that get 'edited' out. I am now bureau chief of an incredibly busy news gathering organisation and more often than not, go to work knowing that my staff of reporters will have gripes about pertinent details left out of what they've written in the editor's zeal to get the news out. This is NOT sloppy reporting on their part but the editors attempting to remain ahead of their competition.
Look, the average reader of internet news sources has the attention span of fleas for the most part. The analogy that the mouse has replaced a TV remote is accurate. We, [the press outlets] have learned that 300 to 450 words maximum will garner their attention, generate further pageviews, and as such keep them reading. This is why some of you folks bristle at the coverage and deem it sloppy.
One of the causalities in this 'new' media is that long, well written, investigative bits are few and very far between. This fact, coupled with the numerous traditional print media outlets closing up shop and going digital, if they can, makes for the "sound-bite" style you are lodging a complaint about.
In the case of the BBC webstory referenced, I was curious so I called a colleague and as I suspected, parts were left out that some may consider germane to the overall reporting but the editors did not. Aggravating? Absolutely. However, it is a factor that for better or worse is highly unlikely to change.
The other print media that covered this story went after the salacious and the lurid, typically referred to as the "ink what we need to sell papers mentality." So you're stuck.
I am not going to pass judgement on the story itself as it is not germane to my point herein.
The bottom line? Do not be so quick as to place all blame on sloppy reporting as in many cases that is actually not the problem. Oh, and one more thing, the other part is that yes, fact checking and verification have also slipped greatly leading to some questionable stories being digitally printed in the zeal to "get'em up fast before Huffington Post does" etc.
Sincerely,
Brody Levesque
Washington Bureau Chief
LGBTQ Nation Magazine * LGBTQNation.com
(202) 556-0877
b.levesque@lgbtqnation.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how any of us here could possibly make an informed decision on the paltry information given.
With what little is given, it looks to me like two kids had a punchup at school.
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Let's not get embroiled in a critique and a defence of journalism. It is not the reporting of the case that worries me, it is the case itself. There are good journalists and poor journalists, and there are people who want to be good but have to earn a living in a challenging environment.
What worries me is that this is before the courts at all, not the reporting of it.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
"Brody Levesque wrote on Fri, 22 March 2013 13:14"WASHINGTON
March 22, 2013
Dear Kitzyma,
The problem with your statement: "The problem with news stories of all kinds nowadays (and maybe it was always the case) is that we never get the full story. That's probably mainly due to sloppy journalism. We don't have all the evidence that will be presented to a jury, so we're left to speculate," is that you're generalising & somewhat incorrect.
I've been a journalist for 3+ decades & in that time I have seen dramatic changes in how the news is delivered. The reporters work very hard to assemble the facts and write, but then it is left up to the editors to shape those stories into the final versions that ultimately are presented to the readers.
Since the advent of the 24/7 newscycle and nearly instantaneous posting on the web, there are considerable details that get 'edited' out. I am now bureau chief of an incredibly busy news gathering organisation and more often than not, go to work knowing that my staff of reporters will have gripes about pertinent details left out of what they've written in the editor's zeal to get the news out. This is NOT sloppy reporting on their part but the editors attempting to remain ahead of their competition.
<snip>
The bottom line? Do not be so quick as to place all blame on sloppy reporting as in many cases that is actually not the problem. Oh, and one more thing, the other part is that yes, fact checking and verification have also slipped greatly leading to some questionable stories being digitally printed in the zeal to "get'em up fast before Huffington Post does" etc.
--
I apologise if I didn't use any correct technical differentiation that might exist between reporting and journalism. I said it's sloppy journalism and you say I put the blame on sloppy reporting, so apparently they may be same thing.
What I meant to point out was the sloppy way news is often presented by all varieties of the media. Presumably the sloppiness could have been introduced by any of the reporters, journalists, editors, plus any other people in that path between the real event and its presentation to the reader, listener, or viewer.
I also apologise for generalising and saying that we never get the full story. I thought everyone would assume it was just a use of hyperbole. To be more accurate, however, perhaps I should have said that we often don't get the full story.
Also, I'm sorry if I implied that there was sloppiness in every person involved in the chain between event happening and news being presented to the public. However, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the weakest link is an editor who picks and chooses which facts to present based on what he thinks is important (i.e. his own preconcieved ideas) then I don't think it's an adequate excuse to blame that massaging of information on a short news cycles or the attention span of readers.
Once people in the news chain start massaging the information, who can say whether it's deliberate and intended to pursue an agenda (as in Warren's example above where 19 & 16 became 50 & 16) or just a misunderstanding of what is important and what isn't? Once people lose trust in the news then it becomes merely another form of entertainment. And the blurring of news and entertainment started with certain tabloids long before the internet was invented, so it can't be blamed entirely on modern news presentation technologies or short news cycles. However, at least in the past one knew that there were soime sources of 'serious' news that were as accurate as possible. Nowadays, it seems that even the BBC isn't so reliable.
The majority of event-presentation chains probably are not sloppy, and the majority of journalist/reporters probably take great getting and verifying facts, just as you do. However, it seems to me that things are getting more sloppy, which is why I used the word 'nowadays'. The recent fiasco of the BBC libelling a Tory lord could have been avoided by some basic fact-checking. I wonder if that would have happened 3 decades ago when you started as a journalist or if things are getting worse.
Maybe they aren't getting worse and perhaps I'm just noticing them more, but hardly a day goes by when I don't see some example of sloppiness. Major libels may be rare, but minor examples are commonplace, such as the BBC reporter a few days ago who referred to the same organism as a virus in one sentence and a bacteria (sic) in the next.
Whatever the source of the lack of full information, i.e, in any part of the information chain, and whatever the excuse for it, e.g. short news cycle, there is no doubt that we often don't get all the important facts. By referring to that as sloppiness, I was being charitable, because the other alternative is deliberate manipulation, as in Warren's example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
Update:
A young television actor has been cleared of raping a 14-year-old boy.
Just two teen boys of similar age messing around.
I doubt that the case would have been brought at all before the recent scandals of 'historic' paedophilia that weren't properly investigated. Also, I think that the accused boy being an actor influenced the decision to prosecute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I'm heartened by the fact that the jury used good sense. The concept of reasonable doubt is excellent. This case was not in the public interest to bring to court.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Stories like this worry me 
