OT: Women's World Cup 2015

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zap

Americans beat Japan.

warspite1

Sounds like they thrashed them. Well done USA.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine
So it's hardly the same.

I intentionally pointed to the incident to use it as an example of an obvious domestic violence situation (no one can refute that it occurred) that saw the victim refuse to cooperate. This soccer goalie is also an obvious abuser as well according to this story and chargers were not dropped because of lack of evidence or because there is any doubt she is a violent abuser. Chargers were dropped because witnesses and the victim would not testify, so the two cases are almost the same except there is video evidence in the first case for everyone to see.

http://www.chicagonow.com/token-female/ ... a-big-one/

In my many years in law enforcement I saw thousands of cases of domestic violence and the number of victims that repeatedly dropped charges over and over again that I saw is impossible to count. If I had to estimate it I’d say at least 75% of victims would eventually drop charges even if they were beaten so bad they almost died.

There is an unhealthy level of dependency that many victims have that for whatever reason leads them to find their way back under the control of their abusers, even when it’s obvious to any outsider that they will suffer horribly again and again. The number of victims I watched go through this routine over and over until they eventually were killed by their abuser probably numbers in the hundreds.

Based on this very common pattern seen over and over again, lack of cooperation by victims of domestic abuse should never be used in the criteria that decides whether a case gets charged or not. Sadly it is all too often used as an excuse to drop charges as in the case of this goalie. No one doubts she is guilty yet she is allowed to get away with it simply because her victim won’t cooperate and she knows it. I have no doubt she’ll victimize him again and again until one day she might use a knife or a gun.

Jim

The problem is that when witnesses refuse to testify it is impossible to proceed to a successful outcome in a court of law where the accused is presumed innocent and is fully entitled to challenge the veracity of the evidence brought against them. The video evidence can itself be challenged but it can be introduced by the prosecution. When witnesses refuse to participate there is nothing for the prosecution to introduce; no witness to be challenged in cross examination, no witness statement to be dissected and challenged by the defence. In these circumstance continuing with the case is just more work for the prosecution, depriving other matters of resources, and all for a guaranteed 100% failure.

If there were some third party testimony which could be introduced, such as medical records consistent with physical abuse, that might be strong enough to proceed. But that material is not always strong enough and is often not even in existence and even when it is, the abused may disavow it. Plus you can't introduce hearsay. So all up, when domestic violence often involves only the abuser and the abused, there really is nothing left to do if the abused refuses to testify.

Alfred

[RichMunn]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

But what about that BRITISH goalie? Whad she do now? [:D]

warspite1

Amazing [X(]

Half the time when people should be talking about Britain they refer to England. When they should be talking about England they refer to Britain!!! Why is this so difficult to understand?*

If your reference is to the fact that the England goalkeeper was born in the US, then I'm not sure why this is a "[:D]". There are agreed international rules around who can play for whom depending upon other family for example (as in this case) or in the case of some sports there are "transfer mechanisms" too. If you think the English football team - and Karen Bardsley in particular - is special have a look at how many of the US's 600 athletes for the Olympic Games 2012 were born overseas - more than 40 I believe.



*By the way and for the avoidance of doubt, this is a light-hearted remark..... well mostly anyway.. perhaps a tinsiest bit of frustration too [:D]

No, what happens is that is an English athlete wins a gold medal at, say, the Olympics, he or she is referred to as English, but if a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish athlete does so the English press refers to them as "British". Just look at "British" Andy Murray!

Anyway the Ashes starts in Cardiff this week - that is in Wales by the way, where England and Wales will be playing Australia.

Rich

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zap

Americans beat Japan.

warspite1

Sounds like they thrashed them. Well done USA.

Jolly good, indeed.

I must say-if the sport of soccer was half as entertaining as the first 16 minutes of the first half, I'd watch more of it. How about that mid-field strike? [X(] Phenomenal! [&o]

To bookend my initial post-again in a sophisticated and erudite manner-erm...


[font="Times New Roman"]USA! USA! USA![/font]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The problem is that when witnesses refuse to testify it is impossible to proceed to a successful outcome in a court of law where the accused is presumed innocent and is fully entitled to challenge the veracity of the evidence brought against them. The video evidence can itself be challenged but it can be introduced by the prosecution. When witnesses refuse to participate there is nothing for the prosecution to introduce; no witness to be challenged in cross examination, no witness statement to be dissected and challenged by the defence. In these circumstance continuing with the case is just more work for the prosecution, depriving other matters of resources, and all for a guaranteed 100% failure.

If there were some third party testimony which could be introduced, such as medical records consistent with physical abuse, that might be strong enough to proceed. But that material is not always strong enough and is often not even in existence and even when it is, the abused may disavow it. Plus you can't introduce hearsay. So all up, when domestic violence often involves only the abuser and the abused, there really is nothing left to do if the abused refuses to testify.

I am all for upholding the rights of the accused, but our justice system has become a sort of bizarro world due to expediency and the desire to keep a high conviction average in the stats. The vast majority of domestic violence calls that lead to an arrest do so because at the time of the offense the victim is cooperative and gives a statement and officers find evidence that corroborates the victim’s statement. Later the victim recants and it is this recant that prosecutors hang their hat on as justification to drop the charges.

No one takes into account whether justice is being served when a case gets dropped like that, instead it’s about the law of averages and the small risk of a case being lost that motivates the decision. Cold hard cash (the cost of a trial) comes into play as well, but the over-riding concern is a desire to keep a high conviction rate as it helps careers and makes the DA’s office look good.

It is so commonplace now that I would say its standard policy for just about any DA’s office to simply drop a case if the victim won’t testify without even reviewing whether it’s the right thing to do or not. Looking at the original statement and evidence and impeaching the victims recanting of their original statement on the stand by giving testimony about the psychological aspects that leads many domestic violence victims to drop charges even in the face of life threatening violence is never even considered.

That’s why I said it’s some kind of bizarro world. We know or are pretty confident the suspect is guilty but we pretend it’s their right to a fair trial we are concerned with and dropping charges is somehow upholding justice. When we all know justice is most certainly not being done.

Jim

[Zap]

Another, point of evidence, for my comment on the poor state/ direction our society is taking.

[Chickenboy]

Guys,

I would prefer if you took your discussions of domestic assault and the jurisprudence thereof elsewhere. Please don't post that material in this celebratory thread, lest it be locked.

[Gilmer]

Congrats to the women. Kristin Press is hot.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RichMunn

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

But what about that BRITISH goalie? Whad she do now? [:D]

warspite1

Amazing [X(]

Half the time when people should be talking about Britain they refer to England. When they should be talking about England they refer to Britain!!! Why is this so difficult to understand?*

If your reference is to the fact that the England goalkeeper was born in the US, then I'm not sure why this is a "[:D]". There are agreed international rules around who can play for whom depending upon other family for example (as in this case) or in the case of some sports there are "transfer mechanisms" too. If you think the English football team - and Karen Bardsley in particular - is special have a look at how many of the US's 600 athletes for the Olympic Games 2012 were born overseas - more than 40 I believe.



*By the way and for the avoidance of doubt, this is a light-hearted remark..... well mostly anyway.. perhaps a tinsiest bit of frustration too [:D]

No, what happens is that is an English athlete wins a gold medal at, say, the Olympics, he or she is referred to as English, but if a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish athlete does so the English press refers to them as "British". Just look at "British" Andy Murray!

Anyway the Ashes starts in Cardiff this week - that is in Wales by the way, where England and Wales will be playing Australia.

Rich

warspite1

[8|]

This rubbish old chestnut again

I watch plenty of sport and believe me, this is just so sad. Motor racing: You think for example David Coulthard or Sir JYS were never, indeed are never, referred to as Scotsmen? You think Andy Murray is never referred to as a Scotman? Eddie Irvine was never an Ulsterman when winning Grand Prix?

When English, Northern Irish, Scots or Welsh play a sport representing their individual countries (e.g. Commonwealth Games), they are referred to in those terms. When they represent the United Kingdom/Great Britain (e.g. the Olympic Games) then they are referred to mostly by that denomination but sometimes by the country of their birth. The Welsh lass Nicole Cooke [&o] for example. How many times was she referred to as Welsh on her way to Gold in Beijing even though she was representing Team GB? Plenty - so what? She is Welsh - and British.

To call David Coulthard or Andy Murray British when winning Wimbledon or a Grand Prix is perfectly acceptable.... because they are. So is calling them Scots - because they are - and which they are referred to as frequently. Do some journalists get it wrong? Possibly.. but to suggest the entire English press corps are waging some kind of colonial campaign to beat down the Celts is just pathetic. Do Scots journalists or Welsh journalists at the Olympics ever refer to their athletes by their individual nationality - even when winning Gold for Great Britain and NI? No of course not - its only the Fascist English press that get it wrong isn't it?

Anyway the Ashes starts in Cardiff this week - that is in Wales by the way, where England and Wales will be playing Australia.

No idea why you are getting snotty with me - you clearly have a short memory re the European Championship thread [&:]. You obviously weren't around when the Scots referendum thread was current. Perhaps if you were you would know you picked on the wrong guy if you want to accuse someone of English bias [:@]

[Curtis Lemay]

Sadly, no one stripped down to a sports bra. Maybe next time.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Sadly, no one stripped down to a sports bra. Maybe next time.

See post #7116 in the Australian Beauties thread.

[RichMunn]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RichMunn

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Amazing [X(]

Half the time when people should be talking about Britain they refer to England. When they should be talking about England they refer to Britain!!! Why is this so difficult to understand?*

If your reference is to the fact that the England goalkeeper was born in the US, then I'm not sure why this is a "[:D]". There are agreed international rules around who can play for whom depending upon other family for example (as in this case) or in the case of some sports there are "transfer mechanisms" too. If you think the English football team - and Karen Bardsley in particular - is special have a look at how many of the US's 600 athletes for the Olympic Games 2012 were born overseas - more than 40 I believe.



*By the way and for the avoidance of doubt, this is a light-hearted remark..... well mostly anyway.. perhaps a tinsiest bit of frustration too [:D]

No, what happens is that is an English athlete wins a gold medal at, say, the Olympics, he or she is referred to as English, but if a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish athlete does so the English press refers to them as "British". Just look at "British" Andy Murray!

Anyway the Ashes starts in Cardiff this week - that is in Wales by the way, where England and Wales will be playing Australia.

Rich

warspite1

[8|]

This rubbish old chestnut again

I watch plenty of sport and believe me, this is just so sad. Motor racing: You think for example David Coulthard or Sir JYS were never, indeed are never, referred to as Scotsmen? You think Andy Murray is never referred to as a Scotman? Eddie Irvine was never an Ulsterman when winning Grand Prix?

When English, Northern Irish, Scots or Welsh play a sport representing their individual countries (e.g. Commonwealth Games), they are referred to in those terms. When they represent the United Kingdom/Great Britain (e.g. the Olympic Games) then they are referred to mostly by that denomination but sometimes by the country of their birth. The Welsh lass Nicole Cooke [&o] for example. How many times was she referred to as Welsh on her way to Gold in Beijing even though she was representing Team GB? Plenty - so what? She is Welsh - and British.

To call David Coulthard or Andy Murray British when winning Wimbledon or a Grand Prix is perfectly acceptable.... because they are. So is calling them Scots - because they are - and which they are referred to as frequently. Do some journalists get it wrong? Possibly.. but to suggest the entire English press corps are waging some kind of colonial campaign to beat down the Celts is just pathetic. Do Scots journalists or Welsh journalists at the Olympics ever refer to their athletes by their individual nationality - even when winning Gold for Great Britain and NI? No of course not - its only the Fascist English press that get it wrong isn't it?

Anyway the Ashes starts in Cardiff this week - that is in Wales by the way, where England and Wales will be playing Australia.

No idea why you are getting snotty with me - you clearly have a short memory re the European Championship thread [&:]. You obviously weren't around when the Scots referendum thread was current. Perhaps if you were you would know you picked on the wrong guy if you want to accuse someone of English bias [:@]

Hey I really like you. I didn't intend to be "snotty" with you.

Seem to have touched a nerve though.

It's not an old chestnut if you live in Wales, believe me.

How many "national" newspapers published the fact that if England had not scored a late equaliser against Slovenia, Wales would have been ahead of them in the world rankings? Wales against Belgium was a big match in its group; Slovenia against England was a dead rubber. How many pages did each get?

How many pages does the Times devote to English rugby as opposed to Welsh, Irish or Scottish? "National" newspaper indeed. England win a game and they are going to win the rugby world cup, 6 pager every time.

Sorry if I offended you Warspite. I was originally commenting on your comment about "English" or "British". There are alternative possibilities within "British". You wouldn't know it sometimes though.

Rich

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RichMunn

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RichMunn




No, what happens is that is an English athlete wins a gold medal at, say, the Olympics, he or she is referred to as English, but if a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish athlete does so the English press refers to them as "British". Just look at "British" Andy Murray!

Anyway the Ashes starts in Cardiff this week - that is in Wales by the way, where England and Wales will be playing Australia.

Rich

warspite1

[8|]

This rubbish old chestnut again

I watch plenty of sport and believe me, this is just so sad. Motor racing: You think for example David Coulthard or Sir JYS were never, indeed are never, referred to as Scotsmen? You think Andy Murray is never referred to as a Scotman? Eddie Irvine was never an Ulsterman when winning Grand Prix?

When English, Northern Irish, Scots or Welsh play a sport representing their individual countries (e.g. Commonwealth Games), they are referred to in those terms. When they represent the United Kingdom/Great Britain (e.g. the Olympic Games) then they are referred to mostly by that denomination but sometimes by the country of their birth. The Welsh lass Nicole Cooke [&o] for example. How many times was she referred to as Welsh on her way to Gold in Beijing even though she was representing Team GB? Plenty - so what? She is Welsh - and British.

To call David Coulthard or Andy Murray British when winning Wimbledon or a Grand Prix is perfectly acceptable.... because they are. So is calling them Scots - because they are - and which they are referred to as frequently. Do some journalists get it wrong? Possibly.. but to suggest the entire English press corps are waging some kind of colonial campaign to beat down the Celts is just pathetic. Do Scots journalists or Welsh journalists at the Olympics ever refer to their athletes by their individual nationality - even when winning Gold for Great Britain and NI? No of course not - its only the Fascist English press that get it wrong isn't it?

Anyway the Ashes starts in Cardiff this week - that is in Wales by the way, where England and Wales will be playing Australia.

No idea why you are getting snotty with me - you clearly have a short memory re the European Championship thread [&:]. You obviously weren't around when the Scots referendum thread was current. Perhaps if you were you would know you picked on the wrong guy if you want to accuse someone of English bias [:@]

Hey I really like you. I didn't intend to be "snotty" with you.

Seem to have touched a nerve though.

It's not an old chestnut if you live in Wales, believe me.

How many "national" newspapers published the fact that if England had not scored a late equaliser against Slovenia, Wales would have been ahead of them in the world rankings? Wales against Belgium was a big match in its group; Slovenia against England was a dead rubber. How many pages did each get?

How many pages does the Times devote to English rugby as opposed to Welsh, Irish or Scottish? "National" newspaper indeed. England win a game and they are going to win the rugby world cup, 6 pager every time.

Sorry if I offended you Warspite. I was originally commenting on your comment about "English" or "British". There are alternative possibilities within "British". You wouldn't know it sometimes though.

Rich

warspite1

Yes this touched a nerve - sorry if I went off on one.

A few things though:

1. I guess the problem the national papers have is the audience size and their need to sell papers. If you have two games happening at the same time e.g. England and Wales - both are EC qualifiers but one is a bigger game - but the bigger game caters for a smaller audience (i.e. the actual populations of England vs Wales). I know the Welsh game got plenty of coverage - although I did not compare newspaper columns to the England game. I will look out for this in the autumn as the qualifying process comes to its fascinating (and hopefully successful) conclusion for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. One thing on that though - aren't national papers regional anymore? I thought editions of papers used to be tailored (T.V pages and sports) for different parts of the country? Maybe they don't do that anymore?

2. Re the England and Britain thing I was not suggesting that there are the only two alternatives. This was a light-hearted dig at aaatoysandmore. It is common for our overseas friends to still talk of England (like we are still in the Elizabethan times (Queen Elizabeth I not II [;)]) - when they really mean Britain or the UK. But then this poster compounds the error by referring to Britain when he would have actually been right to say England [:D]

The ironic thing about your post - and the reason for my reaction - is that such mix ups over the country name riles me not only because it is factually incorrect, BUT in support of my fellow Britons who are very much part of the UK and are seemingly ignored by reference to England when discussing the UK.

[RichMunn]

Thanks Warspite -

I always enjoy your posts on any topic, and (almost!) always agree with your approach.

Looking forward to 4 days of the Ashes in my home city.

Rich

[aniketos]

The first 20 minutes of the game was a complete joke. Considering the US played like absolute crap in the last 30-20 mins. of the game it's a wonder why Japan didn't score more since the US couldn't hold on to the ball for more than a few seconds. It was literally, Japan gets the ball, they move it down the field, somehow the US stops them only to kick right back into Japan's possession. If England didn't bungle the hell outta their game against Japan, I suspect the final would have been a helluva lot more fun to watch (and considering England beat Germany in the consolation game, they could have made a serious bid for the trophy in the final). Overall, Japan is a terrible team that couldn't capitalize on the terrible play by the US team and score more goals let alone put together a semblance of a defense in the first 20 minutes. Essentially, two mediocre teams played in the final and one got stupidly lucky. Granted, I'm very happy our team won but jesus was that a pain to watch. Nigeria vs Sweden and France vs Germany are two of the best games in the tournament as far as I'm concerned (I have yet to watch Germany vs England), despite the score of the game, it was quite the mediocre match.

Lastly, Japan's first goal should have never happened. The defender left her feet in the box and let the Japanese player turn and casually blast the ball into the back of the net. Atrocious defending. I was taught that as a defender, you never leave your feat unless you're 110% sure you can get the ball or you are committing a foul. The defender on that play really screwed up. I hope in the future, she learns from that mistake because a much better team will absolutely punish the US for stuff like that.