Hate is a passionate thing...

A few months back I was called in for jury service and it was an experience I really enjoyed. It was interesting to see the 'other' side of the legal process. After being in the police and having seen the process of actually putting a case together and collecting evidence, it was unusual to be one of the people who actually has to decide whether someone is guilty or not.

And it was very very difficult.

I only feel I can talk in more detail about this now because I looked on the local newspapers website the other day to see that this person had in fact been sent down for the crime he apparently committed. I am shamed yet relieved to say that it was not on the back of my verdict as our group could not reach an agreement on the verdict when we were handed the case and as a result, the witnesses, victim and defendant all had to go through the whole lot again with a different jury. But the thing that really drew my attention to this particular case was the comments that the final verdict drew from members of the public.

Basically, the case we had been assigned to was a rape. I know what you're thinking; the same thing I thought when the judge said those words and we were introduced to the defendant: Guilty. Scum. Send him down. It's almost a scarily natural reaction when you are told that someone is being accused of rape because it is seen as such a heinous crime. Obviously, my more balanced views came past that initial angry assumption and I was able to look at the case with less bias. Thankfully this bias was also removed from the minds of the group I was with.

This particular crime happened back in 1995 when a group of young girls very foolishly decided to flag down a lift from a group of males who ranged from 17 years old (a couple of years older than the girls) to a man of his early 20's. Anyone who was made aware of this immediately said "Stupid girls, didn't they know how dangerous that was?" but as foolish as it was, we have to remind ourselves that 1995 was a very different time to 2010. It was a time before obsession with health and safety and a time before pedophiles lurked behind every corner. Parents were less protective and children were more free. So these girls were foolish, but only as foolish as anyone else growing up in the 90's. So they got into the car with these strangers and hitched a lift to a nearby town.

The stories of the girls (now in their early 30's) were expectedly broken and inaccurate; after all it must be hard for a person to remember a particular night from 15 years ago, even if it was a terrifying ordeal. It was this uncertainty yet general agreement on the events of the night that made the girls so believable. But they all told a similar story: during the hitched ride, the youngest male was talking to one of their friends (the victim) and they were both talking in a way which may be construed as 'flirting'. The male was leading the conversation but the soon-to-be victim was also reciprocating to an extent.

During the course of the the ride, the girls became worried as the males were driving them a very long way to their destination and when the car was pulled into a very dark car park they knew it was not going to end well. Two of the girls got out of the car and the third (apparently) attempted to step out before being pulled back into the car by the youngest male. The two other males led the girls to the other side of the car park whilst the youngest male raped their friend.

Then, in an act which some would argue bordered on stupidity but I would argue was an act of confusion, disbelief and terror, the girls got back into the car with the males and were driven to their destination with their very tearful friend and finally were dropped off by the males who then drove off. Shortly after, the incident was reported to the police who took DNA samples but never found the 'rapist'.

It was only this year that the male was caught and I suspect that was a surprise for him as it was on the back of a minor unrelated traffic offence which resulted in him giving his DNA and a match being established to this old, unsolved crime. He was arrested and questioned. His account was flawless, which obviously made me doubt it because he initially refused to answer questions and said 'no comment' to the police. It was only after speaking to his solicitor that his story became the perfect recollection that he described in court.

My personal opinion (and it is only my personal opinion) was that he was lying about some things and that he did rape the girl on that dark night in 1995. BUT, one thing to remember is that rape is NOT as straightforward a crime as people think. A girl may imply consent to a sexual act only to then to resist or refuse whilst the act is in process. Some males may struggle to know when this is genuine refusal or just playful games. An intelligent man would never get into a situation where there is any doubt, but many men are stupid and would not think that far ahead.

What I think happened that night was rape by legal definition alone and whilst I believe the defendant was guilty; I do not think it was as clear cut as people would expect and that is why half of our jury said he was guilty and the other half said not guilty. This conflict of ideas meant that we could not come to a majority decision. One of my group rightly said: "If only there was a choice which was 'a bit guilty' then I would go with that!"

The defendant, at the time of the offence, was a hot-blooded young male who may have believed that he was partaking in a kinky one-night-stand and in his mind, the victim had simply played shy and coy and when she had said stop, he had continued. It makes him an idiot and by definition a rapist, but not an evil man. It was not a tremendous struggle, she was not injured and by all accounts the victim was no angel either.

I think he needed to have a custodial sentence which is why I voted 'guilty' but I don't believe he is an evil man. A stupid decision which has caused hurt needs punishment, but that doesn't make him evil.

Obviously, this male is now facing a substantial prison sentence for the rape. The second jury obviously found him guilty. And so, with this case now hitting the press, the dregs of the general public are now allowed to have their say based on the very little information in the news report: Rapist Caught on DNA After 15 Years.

Que comments like: "Should be shot", "Throw away the key", "Evil". A balanced-minded individual dared to say: "This is not as straightforward as it looks, I agree with the sentence but think that people are overreacting" and was subject to abusive comments as a result. Mob rule: you don't disagree when someone is found guilty by 12 people.

I find this to be such a strange thing; how people can be so narrow- minded, stupid and hate-filled when it comes to something that has no affect on them and when they have so little information. People don't seem to understand that things were so close to being very different. Our group were close to finding the defendant 'not guilty' on more than one occasion. He was a hairs breadth away from freedom because it was such a complicated and difficult case based on evidence from 15 years ago.

If the headline had been: 'Man Walks Free After Being Found Not Guilty of 1995 Rape' there would've either been no comments, or comments of support and words of appraisal at how the judicial system had let an innocent man walk free. That was very almost a reality.

You may wonder why I am making these points when I think the man was guilty of the crime... The reason is that I think he deserved the sentence but I don't think he deserves the hate. People are stupid and it scares me that the decision of what could be only 7 people has initiated such incredibly hateful comments not only towards the defendant but towards anyone daring to defend or even empathise with him. He goes to prison after 15 years -- for an uncertain offence -- leaving a wife and child to deal with such incredible hatred.

I do feel somewhat sorry for him and for the life he now has to lead. But most of all I feel pity for the people who so blindly feel hatred for someone just because a paper and 12 people say he's guilty of a crime. I might've said nothing had it not been the hate they directed towards one person who dared to empathise. One person's balanced logic and empathy should never be punished with comments of such venom.

We all have our rants and our views but we should never, ever, feel hate towards people who oppose our views.

The Worst 'C' Word of Them All

No, it's not cunt.

Nowadays, there's one word we hear all the time, every day, on TV adverts, in our work places and on the news. The word has become twisted and its morphed into a word I hate more than any other. What is the word? What is this terrible, terrible string of letters?

Compensation.

I know, it's not got the same impact as cunt but for me I would much prefer for someone to call me a cunt than to mention compensation in my presence. I will start by saying that I have, in the past, had compensation when I was involved in a motorcycle accident so this probably makes me a complete hypocrite. I will however explain the difference in that 'compensation' and c*mpensation.

At the start of 2007 I had the misfortune of being knocked off my motorcycle by a careless old man. I don't have any ill feelings towards him because it was an accident, exaggerated by the fact that he was really quite old.Plus I made it away alive. He was also very courteous after the accident and admitted his error; something which most modern business types would not dream of doing in a million years. When I was knocked off my bike I damaged my right shoulder and this still occasionally gives my jip. In addition to this, my bike was quite damaged. So, I was 'compensated' by his insurance covering the cost of repairs and 'compensated' by having a payout to cover the damaged jacket, helmet and my shoulder.

This form of compensation comes from the insurance company who will only cover the cost of things that have been damaged and injuries that have a lasting effect. My shoulder does occasionally hurt and may cause problems in later life but its nothing I can't cope with and I got about £3000 for that part of the claim. The reason I don't think I'm a hypocrite is because this cost is not based on any bullshit personal stress or anything, just the cost of the potential surgery I may have to endure in the future to correct it. So, really, I am no better off than I was before the accident. We are even. I am compensated.

What I hate is when people claim c*mpensation for things that have caused nothing but a mild inconvenience to them or when they claim for their precious time which they would've spent complaining anyway. That's the sad truth: there are people out there who actually enjoy complaining. Anotherthin that ticks me off is when people request c*mpensation for their own idiocy. It was an idea that began in America when fat people started to sue McDonald's and it's culminated in people over here suing for everything from slipping on a grape to walking into walls and falling down manholes.

Peter Griffin from Family Guy demonstrates a way of getting more compensation.

It occurred to me the other day how much these things are affecting society. Just walking down the street made me realise how we now have to have signs warning about every potential hazard that our own self preservation impulse should protect against. If someone needs a sign to tell them to duck or to step down or to not cross a street or to not walk into something then they shouldn't be alive. I hate to sound like Hitler but it's contaminating the genepool. Idiots -- during prehistoric times -- would not have survived and as a result their idiocy wouldn't have been passed onto future generations. Unfortunately we can no longer seperate the wheat from the chaff.

The three things I saw that made me realise how stupid society has become were:

1. Foam around scaffolding. With all probability this means that at some point some stupid bastard has walked into the metal strutts. Instead of walking off in shame, they must have tried to sue over their idiocy. This is only a recent thing.
   
2. A sign saying 'low ceiling'. We see these all the time. Presumably a tall person has completely ignored their eyes and walked face first into the ceiling when descending stairs. Fool.
   
3. My inability to purchase toy guns. I know this seems silly, but I trekked around town for two hours trying to find a shop that sells toy guns for a halloween costume. Fucking impossible. When I finally found somewhere that sold them, they were bright green with a big red bell end on the tip of them, as if the green wasn't enough to prove that they weren't real guns.

The last was particularly upsetting because it made me feel sorry for modern kids. When I was younger I used to play army, with realistic cap guns (some were even metal), smoke grenades and -- admittedly a bit silly --  home-made rocket launchers made of drainpipes which fired fireworks. But, if my crotch had been fireworked or if my capgun had exploded in my face I wouldn't have dreamed of suing anyone. Nowerdays kids can't play army unless they want to go out and purchase a Fisher Price Happy Bubble Gun or a Barbie Confetti Launcher. And we wonder why most kids nowerdays just do smack and beat up old people.

This is not my proudest admission, but when I was 10 years old I owned a helecopter toy that launched from a plastic helipad when you pulled a cord. I was stupid enough to want an overhead view and the plastic helecopter flew straight into my right eye. I had to endure the embarrassment of sitting in an eye clinic and having my name read out followed by my condition: "A helecopter flew in his eye."

The nurse then said with deplorable expectancy, "Oh, I hope it wasn't a real helecopter." Her wit was unbelievable and the laugh she got from the rest of the patients probably made her day. If I wasn't 10 I would've said, "It felt fucking real to me. I didn't ask for Krusty the Clown to see to me so get me a real nurse or shut the fuck up."

So, I ended up with a patch on my eye for a month (this was before Johnny Depp murdered our perception of pirates and made everyone think they were cool) so I looked like a tit. The comments, "Where's your parrot Blackbeard" still live with me to this day... but did I sue? Did I claim c*mpensation? No! I learned some valuable lessons:

• Don't get an overhead view of any helecopter taking off, even a toy one.
  
• If you're going to make a 10 year old feel better don't do it by making him feel like a tit and look like a tit.
• Pirates are not cool and despite what Deadliest Warrior says, a knight would kick a pirates scurvy-ridden effeminate arse*
• Always remember the person that called you Blackbeard and make sure you remind everyone of the time he went through a whole swimming lesson with a bollock sticking out the side of his swimming trunks.

My point is valid. I work in customer care (well, complaints) and I have to deal with the 'c' word every single day from many people who do not have any reason to make such a request. If you humour these people and give in to their demands you are effectively helping to contaminate the human race. Resolve the issue and offer a gesture for the problem, yes, but negotiating some ridiculous demand? Not a chance. I'm doing the world a favour.

As a final note, if you are one of these people who likes to complain or complains to get all you can and think there is nothing wrong with this, I ask you one thing:

When you're screaming and shouting down the phone at someone, demanding something you don't deserve for something that was in all probability your fault, what about the poor bastard listening to you? You may say it's their job to be treated like shit, but it's not. They're there to help, to fix the issue but not to fill your wallet.

And you're not going to get c*mpensation by acting like a cunt.






--DEADLIEST WARRIOR SPOILER--

* I mention the pirate vs. knight episode because I am a fan of the TV show. It is ridiculous in many ways, but its fun and seems to be suprisingly accurate. However the episode where a pirate beats a knight should be petitioned against and removed from TV.