Times on Sunday
Sitting in a café, hearing Mich’s commentary on today’s news I try to decide which of my thoughts is the highest priority to write about. Yet they clamour and I can’t write at all.
The paper reports that 11yr olds (not that the age would matter) are being taught in classes with 60+ pupils and only one teacher. Horrifying: how can a child (or anyone) learn with out the facilities to question what they are being taught? How is one teacher, however good, able to give each student the required individual support, encouragement and tailored information they will invariably need. There is simply not enough hours in a day. The children spend 30 hours a week at school and yet get at the equivalent to 30min a week (or accounting for down time say an optimistic 60% of that: 18min or 3.6 min a day) of individual attention. So even each child only asked 1 question a day they the teacher would only have say 3 min in which to answer it. Bullshit.
BBC is going to show a replication of a rape trial where the rapist and the victim are actors, the jurors are celebrities but the Judge, barristers, police etc are not. The show is called ‘The verdict’. We don’t have access to a TV (nor know when it will be shown) but the article talking about it says that the show hopes to show the way in which a rape trial is carried out in a manner that is biased against the victim. The victim’s reputation is questioned; they are accused of mendacity; their virginity (or lack there of ) before the rape is a valid piece of evidence in the defendants case - despite the fact that surely this piece of information is irrelevant; they are treated more as a witness then a victim; their case is mismanaged and the little evidence they may have at their disposal is often inadmissible due to others actions. The journalist writing the article is one of the jurors. He gives information about how rape cases are conducted. Some statements include that only one in twenty rape trials results in prosecution: many don’t reach trial. Only three out of ten cases that go to trial result in a conviction: many being down graded to assault (which means that the rapist is not put on the sex offenders register and has a lighter sentence). He gives examples, one of which a woman who was raped went to her local doctor after the rape occurred (which takes considerable strength in it’s self) and had a medical evaluation, the doctor then gave the woman the samples that were taken and told her to take them to the hospital. Yet as the woman, as a material witness, then has access to the evidence against her rapist it renders that evidence inadmissible in trial. Apparently the medical community do not understand the requirements trial evidence. He interviewed a barrister who says that of the fifty rapists were she was the defending barrister only 1 was convicted yet she was only convinced of the innocence of two.
Apparently the show (or report) does not recommend a change in law, nor asks to lower the standards of proof. It makes 21 recommendations for improved proceedings and consistent, prompt and competent collection of evidence.
Mich's commentary has overtaken my indecision.
The paper reports that 11yr olds (not that the age would matter) are being taught in classes with 60+ pupils and only one teacher. Horrifying: how can a child (or anyone) learn with out the facilities to question what they are being taught? How is one teacher, however good, able to give each student the required individual support, encouragement and tailored information they will invariably need. There is simply not enough hours in a day. The children spend 30 hours a week at school and yet get at the equivalent to 30min a week (or accounting for down time say an optimistic 60% of that: 18min or 3.6 min a day) of individual attention. So even each child only asked 1 question a day they the teacher would only have say 3 min in which to answer it. Bullshit.
BBC is going to show a replication of a rape trial where the rapist and the victim are actors, the jurors are celebrities but the Judge, barristers, police etc are not. The show is called ‘The verdict’. We don’t have access to a TV (nor know when it will be shown) but the article talking about it says that the show hopes to show the way in which a rape trial is carried out in a manner that is biased against the victim. The victim’s reputation is questioned; they are accused of mendacity; their virginity (or lack there of ) before the rape is a valid piece of evidence in the defendants case - despite the fact that surely this piece of information is irrelevant; they are treated more as a witness then a victim; their case is mismanaged and the little evidence they may have at their disposal is often inadmissible due to others actions. The journalist writing the article is one of the jurors. He gives information about how rape cases are conducted. Some statements include that only one in twenty rape trials results in prosecution: many don’t reach trial. Only three out of ten cases that go to trial result in a conviction: many being down graded to assault (which means that the rapist is not put on the sex offenders register and has a lighter sentence). He gives examples, one of which a woman who was raped went to her local doctor after the rape occurred (which takes considerable strength in it’s self) and had a medical evaluation, the doctor then gave the woman the samples that were taken and told her to take them to the hospital. Yet as the woman, as a material witness, then has access to the evidence against her rapist it renders that evidence inadmissible in trial. Apparently the medical community do not understand the requirements trial evidence. He interviewed a barrister who says that of the fifty rapists were she was the defending barrister only 1 was convicted yet she was only convinced of the innocence of two.
Apparently the show (or report) does not recommend a change in law, nor asks to lower the standards of proof. It makes 21 recommendations for improved proceedings and consistent, prompt and competent collection of evidence.
Mich's commentary has overtaken my indecision.