23 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Who is blaming "the women"?

 

Some of us question some women's motives.

Obviously there are bad guys who abuse and rape women. And I think almost all of us want that those bad guys go to jail. I didn't read any comment here where anybody writes that a guilty guy should not go to jail.

On the other hand many of us also know that some women lie. Some want money, some want to be able to play the victim game, some just want to ruin some guys.

 

So how about we all try to see both possible sides? Some guys are bad and should go to jail. And some women lie. Both exist. And in many cases, with limited information we are not able to judge who is lying and who is guilty. 

 

Yes people lie, but here we have 14. Innocent til proven guilty is for courts of law, but the court of public opinion uses a lower burden of proof, especially for law makers.

26 minutes ago, Smithson said:

Yes people lie, but here we have 14. Innocent til proven guilty is for courts of law, but the court of public opinion uses a lower burden of proof, especially for law makers.

So what do you think happend that for many years nothing was reported and then suddenly 14 of them remember something. And it seems all 14 remember is suddenly within one week or so. Strange.

 

Personally I think it's good when the public things something like: let's follow these cases and make sure they are followed up.

But I hate when people come to conclusions without any evidence. I am sure there is somewhere a playbook: How to destroy your opponent. 

23 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How do you know?

I don't say you are wrong, but I also don't know if you are right. There are often lots of assumptions what might have happened.

Fact is if many women would have complained earlier then probably there would be fewer victims. 

I've lived here 18 years.  I've witnessed up close & personal RTP's behaviour (Pattaya's in particular.)

1 hour ago, mikebell said:

I've lived here 18 years.  I've witnessed up close & personal RTP's behaviour (Pattaya's in particular.)

Sorry I didn't realize you are such an expert. 

16 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So what do you think happend that for many years nothing was reported and then suddenly 14 of them remember something. And it seems all 14 remember is suddenly within one week or so. Strange.

 

Personally I think it's good when the public things something like: let's follow these cases and make sure they are followed up.

But I hate when people come to conclusions without any evidence. I am sure there is somewhere a playbook: How to destroy your opponent. 

Books have been written about why it takes so long for people to come forward, there are many reasons. Nobody is coming to conclusions with out evidence, the women's testimonys is strong evidence.

24 minutes ago, Smithson said:

women's testimonys is strong evidence

Really?

32 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Really?

Believe women!

(Obviously no man that's ever lived with a woman would agree with that sentiment)

Edited April 21, 20224 yr by BritManToo

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Really?

Of course. Charges could never be laid with out the testimonies. It's evidence, not proof.

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Believe women!

(Obviously no man that's ever lived with a woman would agree with that sentiment)

Of course everyone lies, I am not saying simple believe them. But a victims testimony is evidence, that's a simple fact.

2 minutes ago, Smithson said:

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Really?

Of course. Charges could never be laid with out the testimonies. It's evidence, not proof.

She wrote: "women's testimonys is strong evidence"

 

I just tried to google this. I didn't find anything about strong evidence for rape. But I found the following. That brings me to the conclusion that something someone said, even a woman, is not "strong evidence".

 

"Strong evidence means the recommendation considered the availability of multiple relevant and high - quality scientific studies, which arrived at similar conclusions about the effectiveness of a treatment."

From https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/strong-evidence#:~:text=Strong evidence means the recommendation considered the availability,impact on the intervention ’s effect. Sample 1

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

She wrote: "women's testimonys is strong evidence"

 

I just tried to google this. I didn't find anything about strong evidence for rape. But I found the following. That brings me to the conclusion that something someone said, even a woman, is not "strong evidence".

 

"Strong evidence means the recommendation considered the availability of multiple relevant and high - quality scientific studies, which arrived at similar conclusions about the effectiveness of a treatment."

From https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/strong-evidence#:~:text=Strong evidence means the recommendation considered the availability,impact on the intervention ’s effect. Sample 1

We are not talking about 'someone saying something', it's 14 ppl filing police reports.

 

If it was a single woman there's a chance she would risk defamation or having her life destroyed, as the Clinton's did to ppl. Even the media is calling it harrasment when it's assualt and rape.

11 minutes ago, Smithson said:

We are not talking about 'someone saying something', it's 14 ppl filing police reports.

 

If it was a single woman there's a chance she would risk defamation or having her life destroyed, as the Clinton's did to ppl. Even the media is calling it harrasment when it's assualt and rape.

My "really?" comment was about her comment "women's testimonys is strong evidence".

Not more, not less.

 

I agree we should take the case again this politician serious and if he is guilty then hopefully he will be prosecuted and jailed. But the fact that suddenly 14 women speak out against him doesn't make him automatically guilty. As far as I see those are 14 allegations. Let the authorities find out the truth. I know this will take time and lots of people don't want to wait for proper investigations. But that doesn't make it right to assume he is guilty. Maybe yes, maybe no.

19 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

My "really?" comment was about her comment "women's testimonys is strong evidence".

Not more, not less.

 

I agree we should take the case again this politician serious and if he is guilty then hopefully he will be prosecuted and jailed. But the fact that suddenly 14 women speak out against him doesn't make him automatically guilty. As far as I see those are 14 allegations. Let the authorities find out the truth. I know this will take time and lots of people don't want to wait for proper investigations. But that doesn't make it right to assume he is guilty. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I'm not assuming he is guilty, that would be sillyl as it's not clear exactly what he's accused of. 

Now 15 people according to other threads

22 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Sorry I didn't realize you are such an expert. 

I'm in the middle of writing my 3rd book on Thailand.  https://mwbell2000.wixsite.com/mikebell