It seems like he didn't rape the babysitter, but it appears highly likely he did rape the fan (although we didn't see what happened between her protests about her boyfriend and the sex - the footage seems to support her courtroom account and that she did not at any stage give consent, but there's still a very minute possibility that she could have changed her mind prior to intercourse - we didn't see what happened).
sharespoilers
with the babysitter it us still statutory rape as he knew she was underage. with the other victim the cries that the friend heard outside the caravan didn't sound in any way like pleasure so yes, he did it.
How old was the babysitter? I thought she was 16. And the sex was admitted by Paul. The issue was the actual consent.
shareI thought the babysitter was under 16. And when did Paul admit having sex with her? I was under the impression he only admitted having sex with Rebecca (the fan).
shareDidn't he say in court that the babysitter removed his clothes (hence the exchange with the Prosecution barrister about his shame over his 'fat' body) preceding intercourse?
shareWow seriously? Just because HE possibly didn't "admit" to having sex with one of the girls doesn't mean it didn't happen. *beep*
share'with the babysitter it us still statutory rape as he knew she was underage. '
We do not have statutory rape in the UK. It is rape or sex with a minor. The babysitter was over 16, which is above the age of consent. It is different in the USA.
It's that man again!!
Indeed.
If Paul Finchley was a teacher or in another position of responsibility (i.e. in locus parentis) with respect to the babysitter, he would be guilty of committing an offence unless she was an over 18.
However, since she was simply a babysitter/his employee, he was not committing a crime, assuming, as the footage seemed to suggest, that she gave full consent, since she was 16 (as you say, the standard age of consent).
No, she was 15 at the time she had sex with him, or when he raped her.
share"No, she was 15 at the time she had sex with him, or when he raped her"
Thank you i thought it was the only one here who seemed to have picked up on this. So even if it was consential she was underage so they didnt believe her that he had "sex" with her, hence at the end why they also showed the scene of the daughter witnessing him with the babysitter.
yes! some of the comments here border on the ridiculous.
shareShe was only 15 and he was her employer. So, yes, he was in a position of responsibility over her.
shareDo you not think it was obvious when Karl / Colin came to get Paul because of Dee's overdose, the sounds coming from the trailer were very much of someone in distress?
shareYes, on balance it sounded like rape. But my mind was more preoccupied with whether Karl would open the trailer and discover Paul raping the young fan, that I admittedly wasn't paying enough attention to the sounds coming from the trailer.
I'm just simply trying to imagine the best case scenario.
Sadly, I think the truth is, no one ever wants to believe a person committed rape, hence the shockingly low conviction rate for this offence (and one has to logically figure that these women can't all be liars or misguided, and that a large number of 'not guilty' rape defendants did in fact commit the offences alleged). That said, the Prosecution really did not establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, from what we saw of the trial footage, and the Defence did put up a relatively credibility version, hence the verdict.
He didn't Rape the Babysitter but Raped the poor Fan.
Damn was this show powerful
Bring on the BAFTA's
Sorry, my last post should have said "I was trying to imagine the best case scenario", but you're right, it's almost certain he raped the fan who visited his trailer (but not the babysitter).
And I think Coltrane at the very least deserves to be nominated. Walters and Riseborough were excellent too.
I'm just simply trying to imagine the best case scenario.
I liked the show tackling the topic of false allegations has this is a subject not tackled too often, yet is a problem of this modern age
It would appear that the problem here is actually your perception.
In the first instance, what we actually know about Savile is that the accusations made to the police in his life-time were very vague and sporadic, with little corroboratory evidence. The latter is also the case with many of the posthumous complaints that have been made public - quite of few of them clearly did not happen, and those who investigated them have said as much. The number of complaints that have resulted in compensation is also significantly lower than when that process started, even though those making the decisions set a very low bar for acceptance.
In the case of "others," some like Stewart Hall were convicted of the bulk if not all of what they were accused of, while in other cases most counts were dismissed, and only a few - or even one in the case of DLT - was upheld. Some accused have had no charges brought against them at all, or were cleared on all counts.
You say, "even when rapes do take place, it is extremely difficult to secure a prosecution," and talk about "believing victims." That's pre-judging every accusation merely on the basis of there being an accusation in the first place. False accusations are a fact. Mistaken accusations are a fact. A genuine victim projecting their abuse onto someone who did not actually abuse them is a fact.
There used to be a very clear principle in law known as Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." These days it seems to have a rider of, "unless someone says he's a nonce, in which case the deck should be stacked against him."
As to the ambiguity in what happened to the fan, people are questioning what actually happened precisely because it is ambiguous. If the writers genuinely wanted to convey what you think they did, then why not actually show it? To me it just seems like a cop-out, and actually quite manipulative to no great purpose.
We see the fan tell him no, and him advancing on her menacingly and determinedly, and then cries that are obviously of pain/anguish, not pleasure, are heard coming from the trailer. How is any of that ambiguous? Do we really need to see yet another rape scene? Personally just hearing it was bad enough!
sharecries that are obviously of pain/anguish, not pleasure, are heard coming from the trailer
I just watched it, they were not ambiguous. And why did Karl not pound on the door.
Put yourself in that position. I assume you are male ... put yourself in Kevin Spacey's trailer and he is coming at you like that.
Yeah you are right. And if that was not enough there was the urgency that Karl was in when Marie was heading towards the trailer and he headed her off. That could have been because he was protecting his pal, but when he got to the trailer he did not knock on it, and turned around not knowing what to do. No question he raped her, or intimidated her forcefully.
share> "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
A phrase that should be questioned more often given how often that is used to excuse the crimes of the powerful.
The babysitter was underage.
The fan was threatened and intimidated.
Thank you
shareMy understanding of the situation was that while he was not guilty of raping the babysitter, he certainly was guilty of raping the fan.
Gordon P. Clarkson
Yes, that seems to be the consensus, and with respect to the fan it does seem pretty clear. Like I said, I'm simply trying to imagine the best case scenario since we (thankfully) didn't see the rape (although admittedly the exchange between Finchley and the fan made it highly unlikely that she would have changed her mind with respect to consent).
shareHow do you figure he did not rape the babysitter, she was underage?
By law, statutorily, he did. One can argue about the justice of the idea
of statutory rape, but it is classed as rape.
The babysitter however willing, was underage, so technically he raped her.
He also raped the woman in the trailer. I've rarely seen movies, tv or miniseries that explores so many issues in one story. This was pretty brilliant.