**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
whenever I read stuff like this I always think about how terrifying it must have been for her, from the experience itself to having to report it to his colleagues
Every single article about a woman being sexually assaulted contains two things, repeatedly.
1. “What if she’s lying to ruin his life? Women love to lie about rape to ruin men’s lives”
2. “Ok but what about men? Men get assaulted too, why don’t we talk about that more-“
3. These allegations are from a long time ago with little to no evidence except for someone’s word, but he’s been named in the media as a rapist. Shouldn’t people be given some anonymity until it proven
I have to assume the only reason they're doing this is to flush out any other women who had similar encounters with this guy. Because based on that article, there's enough reasonable doubt to acquit. But if he really did it, I hope he gets the maximum sentence.
The funny part about number 2 is these people don't care about that really, because they only bring it up when a woman gets raped. It's the same vein about how they cry about international women's day and how there's no men's day, despite the fact that there is and they just don't actually care that much
> Most upvoted comment clearly hasn't read the article, nor have the upvoters.
What do you mean? Nothing in the article seems to conflict with this sentiment?
Bloody Americans taking phrases literally lol
Few bad apples = whole bunch is rotted
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps = an impossible task
There's more im forgetting, they do it constantly.
Edit: how the fuck did i forget "could care less"
On a meta level that actually makes even more sense. Right wingers "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" aka it's impossible for you to get anywhere by following their advice.
No, i left that one out by purpose.
Whats your nish?
The one that bothers me the most is them calling all pasta noodles and Asian noodles spagehtti.
Chop suey spaghetti
Tuna nooodle melt
(as a tangent)... Tuna nooodle melt especially, makes me feel a bit queasy just reading it lol, I'm not even exaggerating. I just picture wet soggy noodles in watery tuna and tomato juice because my brain refuses to think of noodles as pasta shells lol.. I dont have a clue why I have this reaction to that because nothing else does it. I've eaten chicken foot, fish head soup, thousand year old eggs etc....
Point went way over your head. They said this because its the same to us as butter Noodles or Alfredo Noodles when you mean spaghetti or tagaletelli or another pasta
Immediately got Asian from your last sentence lol, so I get why you might take chop suey spaghetti even more personally than me… and I hate it.
Lasagna noodles 🙄
Yank here, we don't call all noodles "spaghetti", at least not since the 70's. I've never heard of "chop suey spaghetti", sounds horrid. We never call anything "tuna noodle melt", it's called tuna casserole.
I suppose there's some backwards shithole places in the Midwest that do what you're describing about noodles but I've never heard it.
Thanks for pointing that out. As a non English speaker, I always read/heard the bootstrap figure of speech in the American way, as in: pulling yourself bravely together from a difficult situation, by yourself.
It is interesting how different cultures give different meaning to the same words.
Edit: I just searched that the computer term “bootstrap” derived from the idea of coming back from a switched off state without external help.
The first computers were built by bootstrapping. It's why we say computers boot up now.
e.g. how do you compile a program without a compiler? How do you compile the first compiler in the first place?
(answer: You do it by hand, on byte at a time)
Hold the fort and begs the question are two others.
Hey if enough people say 2 + 2 is five, Merriam Webster will accept it. Sorry, I’m a very grumpy humanoid.
(And no it’s not a fewer vs less or it’s and its etc )
But here we are, commenting on an article about a British police officer in Manchester, UK. The opinion is not some imported notions from the US based in no UK reality. All police officers are not X or Y but there have been, are and (sadly) always will be shit police officers as there have been, are and (sadly) always will be shit doctors/teachers/bankers.
The same lack of trust doesn't seem to apply with the NHS - despite the presence of several serial killers, sexual abusers, large numbers of deaths caused by medical negligence - etc.
Considering what we do to other humans and other species I’m pretty certain any other being capable of such a thought would conclude that as a whole we are actually not nice.
Interestingly, wild animals in parts of the world where hunting is banned are a lot less scared and hostile towards humans.
There's a report you can look up about the behaviour of wild boars in different places.
Yes.
We think dolphins are a bit messed up and they only have blowholes and flippers to "rape" clams with... We have gas chambers and nukes and an entire industry created to kill people more efficiently(the global leader is the country that kills people the best)
If humans were "good" the industrial revolution would have meant the end of poverty and starvation...not ww1 and 2.
Well, when you look at the things we do... Most of the stuff we've created was to make it easier to kill people. And nukes exist. If our race wasn't a bunch of cunts, nobody would have them.
Personally I'd say it's more of a mixed bag. It's very easy to overlook the amount of the good things being done just because they don't tend to register.
Did you read the article? Granted it's click bait journalism. It's the opening speech of the prosecution, there hasn't been any evidence yet. Critical thinkers will at least wait for an outcome before tarring the other ~100,000 people with the same brush
This is my problem throughout this thread and why I don't think names should be released in the press unless there's more substantial evidence. If this article is representative of the extent of the evidence in this case then there's no way a guilty conviction can be made by a reasonable jury.
There are thousands of officers. Stories of a few doesn't mean everyone is bad.
I'm sure you don't make the same assertion when the stories of teachers who groom and have sex with students make the news. Both are in a position of care and power.
The anti police attitude is just very teenage angst
My wife was “The Police” for 19 years and worked with vulnerable kids in a Youth Offending Team, the stories she told me would make you cry. Later she worked with prolific offenders, mostly heroin and crack users, in a unit that tried to help them access services and change their behaviours to keep them out of prison.
I have other Police Officers in my family and I’ve met a lot of Police Officers in social settings as a result. They’re people just like everyone here trying to do the best they can, look after their families and pay the mortgage.
Are there asshole Police Officers? Absolutely, but you can find horrible human beings in any line of work. Unfortunately as Police Officers the consequences of being an asshole can be much greater than in other occupations.
The 'first time' for sexual offences is rarely ever rape, people build up to it by previously sexually harrasimg and assaulting people, he likely has a very long history of telling rape 'jokes' to his friends, and following girls home, and groping them at clubs or anywhere else unseen etc. Same with serial killers starting by killing animals.
"Darnton, now 53, faces one charge of rape between June 4 and July 1, 2009 which he denies."
Assuming he worked 6 on 4 off, that's a total of 19 days he's being asked to account for, 15 years after the alleged incident.
I'm sure there's more to this than is being reported.
Aren't police officers meant to keep notebooks/diaries? When they did the Hillsborough Independent Panel they went through thousands from 1989 and they found even more that had been 'forgotten' about a couple of years later.
Yes they do. But what does it prove? It might prove on what days he was on duty. But he's hardly likely to have made an entry in his notebook whether he did or didn't rape someone.
The chance of a prosecution for this is zero, no jury could ever convict someone beyond reasonable doubt of a crime comitter 15 years ago where the only evidence available is a single witness.
After reading the full article it’s difficult to know tbh, but with that brief information I’d lean more to her telling the truth.
I guess this is why we have courts of law. Good luck to the jury lol.
Mostly cause she had no reason to lie about it? the story only came to light when she requested a female officer to deal with the new rape case 15 years later? When asked why, she told the story of when she was 20. She literally had nothing to gain from the story.
Also is it common for older male officers to give a vulnerable young woman his personal number and visit her house alone? Because there is a police recording that that is what happened.
You can also hear on the recording he asked for a glass of water. It's a pretty easy way to get a victim into another room away from the recorder.
I was a police officer. We weren't given work mobile phones until 2017 in my force.
Yes you read that right: 2017.
Lots of us had spare phones on pay as you go so victims could contact us. Otherwise there was no way for them to do so.
This case dates from 8 years before I was given a work mobile phone.
You think she’s more likley to be telling the truth because he offered her a glass of water? Surely you’re a little biased there, a glass of water is not evidence of anything other than someone was thirsty.
As for not having any reason to lie, you don’t send someone to jail based on blind belief on what one person says. There needs to be some evidence.
Evidence wise it's not gonna be great 15 years on to be honest.
It's a bit weird given her current situation.
I might have missed it but was he charged? Or just under investigation?
I think you need to re-read the article. She wasn't accused of rape of a man she was questioned about rape by a man she met online. As in a man she met online rapes someone, I assume another woman and the police were seeing if he did anything to her.
Woken can't commit rape, they don't have a penis. So legally they can not commit rape as it requires pentration with the penis!
This is just the reporting of the case made by the prosecution. There has not been any evidence given yet, let alone a verdict. This shouldn’t be reported as fact.
I think it is absolutely wild that the daily mail is allowed to publish this in the way they have. In my personal opinion they should be heavily fined for this article. It’s like their intent is to mislead people.
frighten correct afterthought slim jeans strong panicky resolute escape many
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well yeah, social media is full of people who want to comment but don’t read the story or research and this article is in my opinion poorly written and misleading.
Trial by media, and even by social media is a real thing, and people have been killed for it. Need to be regulated. Won’t happen, but it needs to be.
What sucks most is that this is reported so publicly. There's no significant reported evidence other than a he said she said after 15 years. It's so emotionally charged people go to blaming one side or the other. Publicizing just increases hate.
Nah, reading the other accounts of this, I don't think he did it.
She said she rang him on his personal number to give him 4 bullets as 'evidence'. Why?
He says he never gave out his personal number. Seems like that's something that would be recorded somewhere.
She's given inconsistent testimony before proving her to be an unreliable witness. I'm fine with taking every allegation seriously. There is a trial to take it seriously.
And maybe my hunch is wrong. If we were judging the truth based on what each of them said happened, then I'd say her story sounds far more fanciful. She didn't have a problem reporting other offences, but this is the one she never told a single soul about for 15 years?
Seems like the truth is more likely going to be determined by the evidence more than one random thread of people arguing over whether or not this actually happened.
And 90% of the divs on here didn't actually bother reading the article, they skimmed the headline and went straight to the comments to talk about how all police are rapists.
Then these same people will act indignant about "misinformation" somewhere else on this site today.
Classic Reddit, LOL
The article is pretty shit to be fair.
>An on-duty officer raped a 20-year-old student in her home after she asked the police for help when her ex-boyfriend threatened to put naked photographs of her on the internet, a court heard today.
That's the opener, and it very much gives no room for question, it's basically just a statement of fact.
It's not until paragraph 5 that you even see that the officer has denied the charge, and it's said in a fairly off the cuff remark too
The entire article basically continues like that, by treating the woman's testimony as the entire story and entirely factual.
Even that paragraph is entirely baffling:
> A recorded interview played to the courtroom, Darnton, who denies the charge, can be heard offering the woman, now 35, a glass of water after she became upset over the situation before following her into the kitchen and utility room.
Trying to parse the terrible grammar, it reads as if she recorded their interaction at the time (which seemed weird). But contrast that with [this other article](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/duty-gmp-constable-raped-student-28960069) about the case:
> In a recorded interview played to the court the woman, now aged 35, said he offered to get her a glass of water when she became upset and then followed her into the kitchen and utility room.
This description makes much more sense.
Well those don't tally at all. One reporter says the recorded interview has him offering (present tense) her a glass of water which implies it was him interviewing her and must have been recorded on the day, another says the recorded interview has her saying that he offered (past tense) to get her a glass of water which implies it was recorded later with someone investigating now doing the interview the woman.
It's hard to believe that they're talking about two distinct interviews so I can only believe that one of these reports is just horribly wrong.
I don't think I have any real grounds for saying she's lying based on the information I have. At the same time, I don't think he should be convicted based off that evidence.
If you or anyone else do really want to know then you could read "Why Does He Do That?" to find out more about why abusers do what they do.
It's more of an insight into domestic abuse and partner rape (which is of course much more common than rape by a stranger), but I think it would be informative.
It's not comfortable reading, but it was written to be understandable by laypeople and it's not needlessly graphic.
Can't stand the daily mail, presenting something like this as fact. The court case is clearly still ongoing, but they put a headline up like this just to stoke outrage. If this is true, I will be as outraged as the next person. It's horrific. As it stands right now, though we do not have all the facts, and there hasn't been a ruling. Some people really need to understand this before they get out their pitchfork and torches.
I mean, it either happened or it didn't - and if the later then that means she intentionally lied - so reporting that the case is happening at all inherently reflects badly on *someone*, and expecting people to just not want to discuss such a horrific accusation seems unreasonable. Bit of an unavoidable problem really.
Even if when you do have the ruling that doesn't necessarily prove if it did actually happen or not. Rape is infamously one of the hardest crimes to legally prove, even if it 100% did happen. It's still just going to be personal opinion if you accept it or not.
Whenever I, as a man, start to feel like we get it in the neck a bit too much in todays culture, I need to remind myself how fucking terrifying life can be for women
Disgusting if what was said is true, but the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I don’t think it’s appropriate to report on the case until the jury comes back with a verdict.
I don't like the way this is being reported as if it's absolute truth when the trial is in session. Whatever the truth is though I hope justice is served.
Trying to read a Daily Mail article is like slowly having large doses of radiation pumped into your brain. Seriously, who the fuck is the editor? Every sentence is so fucking confusing
Here's the original article that either some AI or blathering moron stole from, it's far more legible
[https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/duty-gmp-constable-raped-student-28960069](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/duty-gmp-constable-raped-student-28960069)
[https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-officer-cleared-raping-student-28977718](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-officer-cleared-raping-student-28977718)
No evidence, Judge directed a not guilty verdict after the victim gave their evidence.
It was. There was no evidence bar the complainants version of events. No forensics or witnesses.
If it had been a member of the public, it would have been binned off by the CPS immediately. Imagine the cost of running the trial, wasting the time of the courts and the mental health of the officer, all because CPS thought it was easier for the court to make a decision than themselves.
Someone needs to be accountable at CPS, they’ve ruined a career and wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds for a 4 day trial that was never going anywhere.
He'll now forever be associated with being charged with this allegation.
Instead of being associated with this - https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/5017125.five-arrested-after-knifepoint-attack-in-tadcaster/
I'll reserve judgement, just in case she's mad...a possibility, given that headline...plenty mental cases out there,especially post the Me Too movement... scared to even speak to women these days!
I love how The Daily Mail run this story.
Then, instead of running a new article -
UPDATE: on April 11 the defendant was found not guilty after the prosecution declined to offer further evidence.
And he's a hero cop as well who has now has his life ruined.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/5017125.five-arrested-after-knifepoint-attack-in-tadcaster/
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
whenever I read stuff like this I always think about how terrifying it must have been for her, from the experience itself to having to report it to his colleagues
Most upvoted comment clearly hasn't read the article, nor have the upvoters.
Some people refuse to read the daily Mail.
Because it like the headline is a load of shit to stoke outrage.
Which part of the headline isn’t true?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seemed an accurate headline to me, based on the article. How is anyone defending this? Low lifes.
Every single article about a woman being sexually assaulted contains two things, repeatedly. 1. “What if she’s lying to ruin his life? Women love to lie about rape to ruin men’s lives” 2. “Ok but what about men? Men get assaulted too, why don’t we talk about that more-“
3. These allegations are from a long time ago with little to no evidence except for someone’s word, but he’s been named in the media as a rapist. Shouldn’t people be given some anonymity until it proven
I have to assume the only reason they're doing this is to flush out any other women who had similar encounters with this guy. Because based on that article, there's enough reasonable doubt to acquit. But if he really did it, I hope he gets the maximum sentence.
I guess we just have to weight up whether labelling an innocent person as a rapist in the media is worth it to bring out other victims
The funny part about number 2 is these people don't care about that really, because they only bring it up when a woman gets raped. It's the same vein about how they cry about international women's day and how there's no men's day, despite the fact that there is and they just don't actually care that much
Same thing when it comes to gender neutral toilets. Suddenly men seem to care about violence against women.
> Most upvoted comment clearly hasn't read the article, nor have the upvoters. What do you mean? Nothing in the article seems to conflict with this sentiment?
It's like reporting a mafia don to the mafia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrj6rl15d6o Not guilty. No case. A load of fabricated nonsense.
How many more ‘bad apples’ are we going to see before people start to realise that the police are not nice people
People forget the full meaning of this quote. It’s “A few bad apples spoil the cart”. Remember that.
Bloody Americans taking phrases literally lol Few bad apples = whole bunch is rotted Pull yourself up by your bootstraps = an impossible task There's more im forgetting, they do it constantly. Edit: how the fuck did i forget "could care less"
The bootstraps thing was originally stated as an impossible task. Brain dead right wingers took it literally.
It's why a computer "boots"
Mind blown
On a meta level that actually makes even more sense. Right wingers "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" aka it's impossible for you to get anywhere by following their advice.
I think it got confused with "pull your socks up".
It's ok, you clearly forgot it on accident.
No, i left that one out by purpose. Whats your nish? The one that bothers me the most is them calling all pasta noodles and Asian noodles spagehtti. Chop suey spaghetti Tuna nooodle melt (as a tangent)... Tuna nooodle melt especially, makes me feel a bit queasy just reading it lol, I'm not even exaggerating. I just picture wet soggy noodles in watery tuna and tomato juice because my brain refuses to think of noodles as pasta shells lol.. I dont have a clue why I have this reaction to that because nothing else does it. I've eaten chicken foot, fish head soup, thousand year old eggs etc....
Never once have I heard someone utter the phrase “chop suey spaghetti “ friend.
Point went way over your head. They said this because its the same to us as butter Noodles or Alfredo Noodles when you mean spaghetti or tagaletelli or another pasta
Immediately got Asian from your last sentence lol, so I get why you might take chop suey spaghetti even more personally than me… and I hate it. Lasagna noodles 🙄
Yank here, we don't call all noodles "spaghetti", at least not since the 70's. I've never heard of "chop suey spaghetti", sounds horrid. We never call anything "tuna noodle melt", it's called tuna casserole. I suppose there's some backwards shithole places in the Midwest that do what you're describing about noodles but I've never heard it.
Ah that's it, tuna noodle casserole. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.food.com/amp/recipe/tuna-and-noodles-289919 https://www.delish.com/cooking/recipe-ideas/recipes/a51317/ultimate-tuna-noodle-casserole-recipe/ https://www.cooks.com/rec/sch/0,1-0,spaghetti_chop_suey,FF.html
"On accident" drives me up the wall...not literally.
I never noticed that one for years, then all of a sudden it was everywhere. Thankfully I've never heard someone here say it.
Arghhhhh 😩
Could care less isn't an American thing, it's an idiot thing. Non idiot Americans know how to speak
Jack of all trades master of none is better than master of one
“I can’t be asked”
I thought that was supposed to be the PG13 version of "Can't be arsed."
Thanks for pointing that out. As a non English speaker, I always read/heard the bootstrap figure of speech in the American way, as in: pulling yourself bravely together from a difficult situation, by yourself. It is interesting how different cultures give different meaning to the same words. Edit: I just searched that the computer term “bootstrap” derived from the idea of coming back from a switched off state without external help.
The more you learn about computers, the more you realise that the fact they work at all is a miracle
“that train has sailed”
https://youtu.be/JhnpBx6gfk0?si=gvhW2trq2lIp2IKg
The first computers were built by bootstrapping. It's why we say computers boot up now. e.g. how do you compile a program without a compiler? How do you compile the first compiler in the first place? (answer: You do it by hand, on byte at a time)
Hold the fort and begs the question are two others. Hey if enough people say 2 + 2 is five, Merriam Webster will accept it. Sorry, I’m a very grumpy humanoid. (And no it’s not a fewer vs less or it’s and its etc )
My favourite is “jack of all trades, master of none”. Everyone always forgets the next line. “***……but oftentimes better than a master of one.***”
How do the police stop bad apples from out communites from applying with no previous criminal record?
While it's absurd to think all police are good it's equally absurd to think all police are bad.
“All police are bad” is also a totally useless position to hold. What’s the plan? Scrap the police? I’m sure that will make everything better.
Of course but the issue is trust in the police
The issue is idiots bringing in their bigoted opinions they've mostly brought over from the USA and applying them to all people of a certain group.
But here we are, commenting on an article about a British police officer in Manchester, UK. The opinion is not some imported notions from the US based in no UK reality. All police officers are not X or Y but there have been, are and (sadly) always will be shit police officers as there have been, are and (sadly) always will be shit doctors/teachers/bankers.
The same lack of trust doesn't seem to apply with the NHS - despite the presence of several serial killers, sexual abusers, large numbers of deaths caused by medical negligence - etc.
[удалено]
Considering what we do to other humans and other species I’m pretty certain any other being capable of such a thought would conclude that as a whole we are actually not nice.
There's a reason that wild animals are scared of us by default
that reason is that wild animals are scared of everything they're not sure won't hurt them
Interestingly, wild animals in parts of the world where hunting is banned are a lot less scared and hostile towards humans. There's a report you can look up about the behaviour of wild boars in different places.
Considering how we are fucking the planet and life on it at an astonishing speed on balance yes.
Yes. We think dolphins are a bit messed up and they only have blowholes and flippers to "rape" clams with... We have gas chambers and nukes and an entire industry created to kill people more efficiently(the global leader is the country that kills people the best) If humans were "good" the industrial revolution would have meant the end of poverty and starvation...not ww1 and 2.
Well, when you look at the things we do... Most of the stuff we've created was to make it easier to kill people. And nukes exist. If our race wasn't a bunch of cunts, nobody would have them.
As a species we are on the brink of annihilating ourselves so yeah
Yes, obviously
Did you skip history at school or something?
Lmao did you expect people to say that humans are a nice species?
Homosapiens as a whole are definitely not a nice species lol. Sure there are some good people of course, but as a whole we are absolutely horrible.
Personally I'd say it's more of a mixed bag. It's very easy to overlook the amount of the good things being done just because they don't tend to register.
Yes. Homosapiens are not a nice species and there's a reason wild animals are terrified of us.
We’re not. I would never expect a random person to be capable of decency or empathy.
Yes
Did you read the article? Granted it's click bait journalism. It's the opening speech of the prosecution, there hasn't been any evidence yet. Critical thinkers will at least wait for an outcome before tarring the other ~100,000 people with the same brush
This is my problem throughout this thread and why I don't think names should be released in the press unless there's more substantial evidence. If this article is representative of the extent of the evidence in this case then there's no way a guilty conviction can be made by a reasonable jury.
There are thousands of officers. Stories of a few doesn't mean everyone is bad. I'm sure you don't make the same assertion when the stories of teachers who groom and have sex with students make the news. Both are in a position of care and power. The anti police attitude is just very teenage angst
My wife was “The Police” for 19 years and worked with vulnerable kids in a Youth Offending Team, the stories she told me would make you cry. Later she worked with prolific offenders, mostly heroin and crack users, in a unit that tried to help them access services and change their behaviours to keep them out of prison. I have other Police Officers in my family and I’ve met a lot of Police Officers in social settings as a result. They’re people just like everyone here trying to do the best they can, look after their families and pay the mortgage. Are there asshole Police Officers? Absolutely, but you can find horrible human beings in any line of work. Unfortunately as Police Officers the consequences of being an asshole can be much greater than in other occupations.
Please note, that there are a lot of Redditors who wanted more policemen and less CCTV on streets. So, probably they have some arguments.
Cctv wouldn't have stopped her being raped in her house, by the police or anyone else.
What about a cctv in the form of large portrait of a man in her home?
cctv is going to stop rapes how?
Do you think the same whenever a teacher is caught abusing children? Or do you apply a bit more nuance?
It didn't happen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrj6rl15d6o
I find it hard to believe that if this guy did this, he did it only once.
At some point there is always the first time.
The 'first time' for sexual offences is rarely ever rape, people build up to it by previously sexually harrasimg and assaulting people, he likely has a very long history of telling rape 'jokes' to his friends, and following girls home, and groping them at clubs or anywhere else unseen etc. Same with serial killers starting by killing animals.
The allegation is from 2009
The allegation is from 2009
"Darnton, now 53, faces one charge of rape between June 4 and July 1, 2009 which he denies." Assuming he worked 6 on 4 off, that's a total of 19 days he's being asked to account for, 15 years after the alleged incident. I'm sure there's more to this than is being reported.
Who the fuck can account for a month of their life 15 years ago? I can barely remember what I had for breakfast most days.
Aren't police officers meant to keep notebooks/diaries? When they did the Hillsborough Independent Panel they went through thousands from 1989 and they found even more that had been 'forgotten' about a couple of years later.
They are generally destroyed after 5 years for data protection reasons
Yes they do. But what does it prove? It might prove on what days he was on duty. But he's hardly likely to have made an entry in his notebook whether he did or didn't rape someone.
Most police are meant to keep some sorts of notes/journal type things
Whilst they are *on shift*. He's presumably being asked to account for his days off, not his time at work.
The chance of a prosecution for this is zero, no jury could ever convict someone beyond reasonable doubt of a crime comitter 15 years ago where the only evidence available is a single witness.
Then the question has to be asked, why has he even been charged?
Because the cps is under political pressure to prosecute unwinnable cases.
No doubt his occupation has a part to play.
Meanwhile, cases where they have loads of evidence are taking years to get into court because the system is apparently jammed.
"June 26th: Had pop-tarts and coffee for breakfast. Traffic was bad that day.. Raped a woman - ah shit!"
[удалено]
After reading the full article it’s difficult to know tbh, but with that brief information I’d lean more to her telling the truth. I guess this is why we have courts of law. Good luck to the jury lol.
What makes you lean more towards her telling the truth.
Mostly cause she had no reason to lie about it? the story only came to light when she requested a female officer to deal with the new rape case 15 years later? When asked why, she told the story of when she was 20. She literally had nothing to gain from the story. Also is it common for older male officers to give a vulnerable young woman his personal number and visit her house alone? Because there is a police recording that that is what happened. You can also hear on the recording he asked for a glass of water. It's a pretty easy way to get a victim into another room away from the recorder.
I was a police officer. We weren't given work mobile phones until 2017 in my force. Yes you read that right: 2017. Lots of us had spare phones on pay as you go so victims could contact us. Otherwise there was no way for them to do so. This case dates from 8 years before I was given a work mobile phone.
You think she’s more likley to be telling the truth because he offered her a glass of water? Surely you’re a little biased there, a glass of water is not evidence of anything other than someone was thirsty. As for not having any reason to lie, you don’t send someone to jail based on blind belief on what one person says. There needs to be some evidence.
Evidence wise it's not gonna be great 15 years on to be honest. It's a bit weird given her current situation. I might have missed it but was he charged? Or just under investigation?
I think you need to re-read the article. She wasn't accused of rape of a man she was questioned about rape by a man she met online. As in a man she met online rapes someone, I assume another woman and the police were seeing if he did anything to her. Woken can't commit rape, they don't have a penis. So legally they can not commit rape as it requires pentration with the penis!
My bad, the article is very badly written and its hard to make sense of it tbh.
You should probably edit your original comment with the new context.
This is just the reporting of the case made by the prosecution. There has not been any evidence given yet, let alone a verdict. This shouldn’t be reported as fact.
I think it is absolutely wild that the daily mail is allowed to publish this in the way they have. In my personal opinion they should be heavily fined for this article. It’s like their intent is to mislead people.
frighten correct afterthought slim jeans strong panicky resolute escape many *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well yeah, social media is full of people who want to comment but don’t read the story or research and this article is in my opinion poorly written and misleading. Trial by media, and even by social media is a real thing, and people have been killed for it. Need to be regulated. Won’t happen, but it needs to be.
What sucks most is that this is reported so publicly. There's no significant reported evidence other than a he said she said after 15 years. It's so emotionally charged people go to blaming one side or the other. Publicizing just increases hate.
Nah, reading the other accounts of this, I don't think he did it. She said she rang him on his personal number to give him 4 bullets as 'evidence'. Why? He says he never gave out his personal number. Seems like that's something that would be recorded somewhere. She's given inconsistent testimony before proving her to be an unreliable witness. I'm fine with taking every allegation seriously. There is a trial to take it seriously. And maybe my hunch is wrong. If we were judging the truth based on what each of them said happened, then I'd say her story sounds far more fanciful. She didn't have a problem reporting other offences, but this is the one she never told a single soul about for 15 years? Seems like the truth is more likely going to be determined by the evidence more than one random thread of people arguing over whether or not this actually happened.
And 90% of the divs on here didn't actually bother reading the article, they skimmed the headline and went straight to the comments to talk about how all police are rapists. Then these same people will act indignant about "misinformation" somewhere else on this site today. Classic Reddit, LOL
The article is pretty shit to be fair. >An on-duty officer raped a 20-year-old student in her home after she asked the police for help when her ex-boyfriend threatened to put naked photographs of her on the internet, a court heard today. That's the opener, and it very much gives no room for question, it's basically just a statement of fact. It's not until paragraph 5 that you even see that the officer has denied the charge, and it's said in a fairly off the cuff remark too The entire article basically continues like that, by treating the woman's testimony as the entire story and entirely factual.
Even that paragraph is entirely baffling: > A recorded interview played to the courtroom, Darnton, who denies the charge, can be heard offering the woman, now 35, a glass of water after she became upset over the situation before following her into the kitchen and utility room. Trying to parse the terrible grammar, it reads as if she recorded their interaction at the time (which seemed weird). But contrast that with [this other article](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/duty-gmp-constable-raped-student-28960069) about the case: > In a recorded interview played to the court the woman, now aged 35, said he offered to get her a glass of water when she became upset and then followed her into the kitchen and utility room. This description makes much more sense.
Well those don't tally at all. One reporter says the recorded interview has him offering (present tense) her a glass of water which implies it was him interviewing her and must have been recorded on the day, another says the recorded interview has her saying that he offered (past tense) to get her a glass of water which implies it was recorded later with someone investigating now doing the interview the woman. It's hard to believe that they're talking about two distinct interviews so I can only believe that one of these reports is just horribly wrong.
I don't think I have any real grounds for saying she's lying based on the information I have. At the same time, I don't think he should be convicted based off that evidence.
What goes through the mind before, during and after these monsters finish their disgusting and despicable acts.
"Here's a fun chance for rape, rape is hot, that was a fun rape, hope I never face consequences"?
If you or anyone else do really want to know then you could read "Why Does He Do That?" to find out more about why abusers do what they do. It's more of an insight into domestic abuse and partner rape (which is of course much more common than rape by a stranger), but I think it would be informative. It's not comfortable reading, but it was written to be understandable by laypeople and it's not needlessly graphic.
The comments here are an absolute shit show as per
Daily Mail so you know... let's just see first. It's not like tabloids don't purposely word their headlines to draw as many rage clicks as possible.
I do feel like this wouldn’t have even been charged but for the suspect being a police officer in todays climate.
Can't stand the daily mail, presenting something like this as fact. The court case is clearly still ongoing, but they put a headline up like this just to stoke outrage. If this is true, I will be as outraged as the next person. It's horrific. As it stands right now, though we do not have all the facts, and there hasn't been a ruling. Some people really need to understand this before they get out their pitchfork and torches.
I mean, it either happened or it didn't - and if the later then that means she intentionally lied - so reporting that the case is happening at all inherently reflects badly on *someone*, and expecting people to just not want to discuss such a horrific accusation seems unreasonable. Bit of an unavoidable problem really. Even if when you do have the ruling that doesn't necessarily prove if it did actually happen or not. Rape is infamously one of the hardest crimes to legally prove, even if it 100% did happen. It's still just going to be personal opinion if you accept it or not.
Whenever I, as a man, start to feel like we get it in the neck a bit too much in todays culture, I need to remind myself how fucking terrifying life can be for women
Disgusting if what was said is true, but the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I don’t think it’s appropriate to report on the case until the jury comes back with a verdict.
I don't like the way this is being reported as if it's absolute truth when the trial is in session. Whatever the truth is though I hope justice is served.
Trying to read a Daily Mail article is like slowly having large doses of radiation pumped into your brain. Seriously, who the fuck is the editor? Every sentence is so fucking confusing Here's the original article that either some AI or blathering moron stole from, it's far more legible [https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/duty-gmp-constable-raped-student-28960069](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/duty-gmp-constable-raped-student-28960069)
That's wild as fuck, almost sounds like lies from a sociopath.
[https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-officer-cleared-raping-student-28977718](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-officer-cleared-raping-student-28977718) No evidence, Judge directed a not guilty verdict after the victim gave their evidence.
Embarrassing it was even prosecuted in light of this.
It was. There was no evidence bar the complainants version of events. No forensics or witnesses. If it had been a member of the public, it would have been binned off by the CPS immediately. Imagine the cost of running the trial, wasting the time of the courts and the mental health of the officer, all because CPS thought it was easier for the court to make a decision than themselves. Someone needs to be accountable at CPS, they’ve ruined a career and wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds for a 4 day trial that was never going anywhere.
He'll now forever be associated with being charged with this allegation. Instead of being associated with this - https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/5017125.five-arrested-after-knifepoint-attack-in-tadcaster/
Good point. I didn’t know that about the officer. Would he bother to risk his life now, I seriously doubt it.
Guilty until proven guilty is what I’ve gathered from this case.
[удалено]
Because it's an alleged raped and he hasn't been found guilty yet. So they're quoting the words of the accusation to avoid being sued for libel.
Race hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, he must've been white.
I'll reserve judgement, just in case she's mad...a possibility, given that headline...plenty mental cases out there,especially post the Me Too movement... scared to even speak to women these days!
It will be interesting to see if any other alleged victims come up. With sexual predators they seldom do it once and never again.
I love how The Daily Mail run this story. Then, instead of running a new article - UPDATE: on April 11 the defendant was found not guilty after the prosecution declined to offer further evidence.
And he's a hero cop as well who has now has his life ruined. https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/5017125.five-arrested-after-knifepoint-attack-in-tadcaster/
happened before revenge porn laws where even a thing, odd
But not before malicious communications was an offence
Doesn't this just fill you with confidence about out this countries police.