Jack Diamond on Piers Morgan tonight

stevo said:
There was 5 whole days of evidence,7 mins for the jury to decide tells its own story.
Click to expand...
If you infer a story from it, based on only that information, then it’s based partly on your imagination.

To be clear, my point isn’t about this case specifically. I understand the rationale for naming the accused if there’s good reason to think they’re a repeat offender and it would encourage other victims to come forward. That doesn’t seem to be the case with Diamond though and it seems he’s been badly let down here.

But the wider point is important because, as others have pointed out, it’s a short hop from conflating a not guilty verdict with the idea of being ‘found innocent’, to assuming that an accuser was lying. The risk of being branded a liar dissuades abused women from coming forward.

Being wrongly accused must be horrific. And @cronnyberg’s previous point about the scale of the injustice to women stands too.

Rape or sexual assault cases aren’t the place for casual assumptions. Let’s stick to what we know.
 


E Tenebris Lux said:
The law is innocent until proven guilty. Anonymity is vital. To blast his name and address all over the press and media before the court case is disgraceful. The other party is kept anonymous, in this case still even though he is innocent. The jury took 7 minutes to reach a decision. !! He has suffered mentally and financially also subjected to public verbal abuse. The police and CPS need to look at themselves . They should be investigated by their watchdogs to help prevent this happening again. No doubt stats of convictions put pressure on the police but CPS don’t seem fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

Take Diamond out of the picture though, if someone is getting done for rape, regardless, people should probably know as it as he's a massive risk. Imo anyone with serious crimes like that shouldn't be on the streets at all and should be locked up on remand but that's another debate. The police, at the time, clearly think he's a danger to society.

What happens after, happens after, but there's no evidence he never done it until he takes her to court for false accusations. It's a complete mess but people don't get charged for no reason. Personally, I'm neutral, as there could still be a lass who was raped but didn't have the evidence to proove it or there could be an truely innocent man. There's only 2 people who know the answer to that though.
 
tunstallhill said:
He's being used here by Morgan.

Although diamond may well have been a victim of terrible baseless accusations, Morgan will spin it in with an anti-woman, anti-woke, 'you can't say anything these days' agenda
Click to expand...

So a journalist has an agenda? They use people, people use them.
All that matters here is that as many people as possible hear Jacks story for the benefit of his future and future justice.

That your first thought should be Morgan will turn it into an antiwoke fest, is frankly bizarre.
eejit said:
If you infer a story from it, based on only that information, then it’s based partly on your imagination.

To be clear, my point isn’t about this case specifically. I understand the rationale for naming the accused if there’s good reason to think they’re a repeat offender and it would encourage other victims to come forward. That doesn’t seem to be the case with Diamond though and it seems he’s been badly let down here.

But the wider point is important because, as others have pointed out, it’s a short hop from conflating a not guilty verdict with the idea of being ‘found innocent’, to assuming that an accuser was lying. The risk of being branded a liar dissuades abused women from coming forward.

Being wrongly accused must be horrific. And @cronnyberg’s previous point about the scale of the injustice to women stands too.

Rape or sexual assault cases aren’t the place for casual assumptions. Let’s stick to what we know.
Click to expand...

Let’s not name people until they have been found quilty. It’s simple really
 
Last edited:
Zimba said:
Take Diamond out of the picture though, if someone is getting done for rape, regardless, people should probably know as it as he's a massive risk. Imo anyone with serious crimes like that shouldn't be on the streets at all and should be locked up on remand but that's another debate. The police, at the time, clearly think he's a danger to society.

What happens after, happens after, but there's no evidence he never done it until he takes her to court for false accusations. It's a complete mess but people don't get charged for no reason. Personally, I'm neutral, as there could still be a lass who was raped but didn't have the evidence to proove it or there could be an truely innocent man. There's only 2 people who know the answer to that though.
Click to expand...

What a load of shite.

"No evidence he never done it". No one has to produce evidence they didn't do something, asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous.

That the jury took seven minutes to decide tells you everything you need to know.

The fact is rape has become a massively politicised crime in this country. You couldn't have a better example than this case - two years to come to trial and dismissed in seven minutes. There was clearly no evidence, no prospect of a conviction but the police and CPS are so desperate to convict men for rape they'll push on anyway.

Such is the pressure at every level to convict come what may they'll pursue any nonsense allegation, and we even saw the met systematically withholding evidence in rape cases, pursuing cases all the way to conviction when they *knew* the man was not guilty.

Absolutely terrifying for father of any young lad to think that his life could be utterly ruined by a woman scorned and the system would do anything and anything to persecute rather than protect them.

And no comeback or consequence almost no matter how malicious or unfounded the allegation.

It's the same level of institutional malevolence that saw all of the cases pursued against innocent sub postmasters, but without the excuse of having a faulty computer system to blame.
 
Last edited:
RokerRoarer said:
As with Ched Evans, the bloke is innocent but automatically tarnished for life, these kind of disgusting women need harsh prison sentences.
Click to expand...

Evans was different. CCTV footage showed that he actually went to a hotel room with the intent of having sex with a girl who was pissed who his mate had pulled a few hours earlier. Then fucked off via the fire exit once he’d got his end away. He was convicted on the basis the lass could’ve reasonably consented to having sex with his mate (she got chatting to him in a pizza shop then got in a taxi with him) but not to him.

Not saying he should be labelled a rapist given it was overturned but you can at least see the logic.
 
Hulkster said:
What a load of shite.

"No evidence he never done it". No one has to produce evidence they didn't do something, asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous.

That the jury took seven minutes to decide tells you everything you need to know.

The fact is rape has become a massively politicised crime in this country. You couldn't have a better example than this case - two years to come to trial and dismissed in seven minutes. There was clearly no evidence, no prospect of a conviction but the police and CPS are so desperate to convict men for rape they'll push on anyway.

Such is the pressure at every level to convict come what may they'll pursue any nonsense allegation, and we even saw the met systematically withholding evidence in rape cases, pursuing cases all the way to conviction when they *knew* the man was not guilty.

Absolutely terrifying for father of any young lad to think that his life could be utterly ruined by a woman scorned and the system would do anything and anything to persecute rather than protect them.

And no comeback or consequence almost no matter how malicious or unfounded the allegation.

It's the same level of institutional malevolence that saw all of the cases pursued against innocent sub postmasters, but without the excuse of having a faulty computer system to blame.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense sorry and a complete insult to women who actually have been raped. What do you expect them to do, nothing? Just because there's the odd psycho woman around.

Like I said I'm staying neutral as there's no facts either way, you've just made up your own mind based on absolutely nothing.

Rape is one of the hardest crimes to charge someone on as if one person says we agreed to sex and the other says we didn't but we met on an app what exact evidence is there. You can't send someone to jail based on gut feelings.

Instead of going for police surely the problem is the media anyway? Why can someone like Schofield get a silence against the media yet any other person can't? If the likes BBC Look North didn't splash it all over the TV then most people wouldn't have known.
 
UpTheDuff said:
Which given prejudices in the system are still biased against female victims so many rapists go free, acquittal is pretty meaningless in that sense.

I tend to think guys who do interviews like this have a bitterness towards women and are trying to start a pile on to intimidate and punish the accuser and silence other victims. Which to me is a red flag they are more likely to be a rapist or abuser.
Click to expand...
What a load of utter bollocks.
Did you watch the interview ? Jack never showed any bitterness towards her at all. He even said when asked how he felt that he had no hatred towards her but instead felt embarrassed for her.

Your comments are pretty disgraceful to be honest. You have virtually said you don’t believe Jack, and because he did this interview he is either a rapist or abuser. You should hang your head in shame you utter walloper !!!!
 
RokerRoarer said:
As with Ched Evans, the bloke is innocent but automatically tarnished for life, these kind of disgusting women need harsh prison sentences.
Click to expand...

The facts Evans was found not guilty after a second trial doesn’t mean he was innocent.
Offering £50000 to witnesses who could ‘help’ his case and having his partner’s wealthy family bankroll his defence barristers shows you that money buys you freedom.

Evans is a slug of the lowest order.
 
stevo said:
There was 5 whole days of evidence,7 mins for the jury to decide tells its own story.
Click to expand...
Years ago I was on a jury for a murder trial.

We heard 5 days prosecution evidence and about 2 hour’s defence.

The evidence was overwhelming and a guilty verdict was the obvious outcome.

Even so, just to give due respect to the process, we waited 30 minutes before giving our verdict.

To come to a verdict in only 7 minutes tells me that the prosecution had no case.

Obviously this whole thing shouldn’t have gone to court
 
Eggman said:
Years ago I was on a jury for a murder trial.

We heard 5 days prosecution evidence and about 2 hour’s defence.

The evidence was overwhelming and a guilty verdict was the obvious outcome.

Even so, just to give due respect to the process, we waited 30 minutes before giving our verdict.

To come to a verdict in only 7 minutes tells me that the prosecution had no case.

Obviously this whole thing shouldn’t have gone to court
Click to expand...
Exactly,well said
 
Hulkster said:
Absolutely terrifying for father of any young lad to think that his life could be utterly ruined by a woman scorned
Click to expand...
It really is. It’s also terrifying that a daughter’s life could be wrecked by a sexual assault that nobody is prosecuted for.

In either scenario, the effect on the people involved is horrific.

The second one is many times more likely to happen.

What you see as politicisation and institutional malevolence might merely be an attempt to address that problem. The CPS _should_ be desperate to prosecute rapists. Far too many get away with it.

That doesn’t excuse poor decision making in this case and it seems Diamond has been wronged. You can have sympathy for him while also recognising the need to improve justice for women. It’s not politics.
 
UpTheDuff said:
Which given prejudices in the system are still biased against female victims so many rapists go free, acquittal is pretty meaningless in that sense.

I tend to think guys who do interviews like this have a bitterness towards women and are trying to start a pile on to intimidate and punish the accuser and silence other victims. Which to me is a red flag they are more likely to be a rapist or abuser.
Click to expand...
Your username suggests you are as thick as your post.
 

Back
Top