Kids see mum raped on YouTube

Kids see mum raped on YouTube

www.news.com.au

FOOTAGE of a mother repeatedly raped in front of her screaming children posted on YouTube has sparked calls for the video sharing website to be moderated.

The 25-year-old woman, who said her glass of champagne was spiked by three teenage boys when they visited her London home in November, said the three-minute mobile phone footage of of her horrific ordeal was watched by 600 people.

The woman said she was unable to move, but fully aware during the hours-long attack.

"They just hurt me the whole way through. They had no respect," she told Sky News.

"Afterwards one p****** on me, like I was nothing.

"I felt dirtly, humiliated, ashamed. I did not want to tell anyone, did not want to do anything, I just wanted to forget."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Apart from the deplorable act in itself, the fact that YouTube was able to host it for others to see is in itself terrible.

Plus who does this act then decides everyone else should be able to see it?

I think it is disgusting, especially on a such a popular site like YouTube. Maybe each video needs to be watched by admins prior to being hosted.

Sure to some extent this is being blown out of proportion, however, i would expect better than YouTube, after all it is trying to keep as somewhat cleaner image. It has not declined like uselessjunk and other websites that used to just host videos of people falling off skateboards.

EDIT: I am aware of the misleading title... but i didn't make it... the news site did.


www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6/3/2008 by SilentShadow]

What next!?! At least the video can be used in evidence against the perpetrators of this disgusting crime. That poor woman and her psychologically scarred kids. Hell, the one's that did this should be flogged in public and then castrated using a branding iron.

isn't it deplorable that 600 people watched this video before it was pulled (presumably after being reported for what it was to youtube)

600 people!

...how disturbing!

I wonder if these teens were friends with a child of hers?

I agree with the approval before being watched idea!
There would be plenty of people who would volunteer to do the job!





[edit on 6-3-2008 by Givenmay]

[edit on 6-3-2008 by Givenmay]

theres a "flag as inappropriate" button on youtube when you press that button it sends a email to the site admin and they watch the video to either put the video under age restriction or remove it completely.youtube put up a site to allow people to share videos with each other for free when all the copyright issues happened with youtube it took them months and they still havent gotten all the copyrighted material off of youtube. thats why there is simply a flag button so the community can police itself and it worked this video got pulled down. yeah it got 600 views but compared to the MASSIVE amount of traffic on youtube it actually didnt get that many views. imean its wrong but how are you going to ruin youtube because of these three (i cant seem to think of a word harsh enough).also if youtube did decide to start screening videos before there "released" then first wed have the problems of volunteers restricting videos just to be mean,then they would have to start employing people to screen the videos and then youtube costs money to use. aside from all that, then whos to decide where to draw the line? imean obviously three teens raping someone would be banned. but what about someone who has a video of someone getting beaten by police officers and they want to expose it....deemed to violent and banned? thats the problem censorship is never an easy thing to do because no two people have the same moral standards.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by justanothergangster]

Was it liquid ecstasy that spiked the drink ? What drug does this effect of being conscious but unable to defend oneself ?

reply to post by ergoli


x has a taste (a bad one) so if you were gonna spike someones drink x wouldnt be your best bet. roofies is what they always talk about being used in date rape. acid ('___') would leave you to disoriented to defend yourself. but were talking about a girl 100-200 lb body weight and propably no tolerance to any kind of drugs so they could have used just about anything. the first time you try...imean are subjected to any kind of drug its pretty intense.

You cant moderate a site like you tube video by video. You would need hundreds of people if not more dedicated just to screening videos to stop a backlog of videos a month long, which isn't exactly feasible. where do you suggest they get the money? they would need a new building, new equipment, then they have all those people to pay.

the current system is fine, if its inappropriate then report it.

Givenmay google are not likely to put video screening in the hands of unpaid people across the internet, there's no accountability for the people doing that job then, and really, its not the kind of job people would be willing to do for free.

justanothergangster also make a good point, volunteers would put there own personal views in the way of screening videos, and to put a little conspiracy into the mix do you really think the governments wont jump at the opportunity to block videos from youtube they don't want people seeing?

My question is:

Why did it take 600 viewers to finally flag the video? Sick world we live in.

reply to post by justanothergangster


'___' has an awful taste, it was most likely Rohypnol or GHB.

I would suspect that these teens somehow knew the woman. I say this because it seems (according to the OP) she invited them over.

Disgusting act either way.

How many of you watched the beheading clips? The hanging of Saddam? The throwing of the puppy from the cliff?

That's the kind of world we live in, it's not right, but we do it.
I watched those because besides tinkling my freaky side it also reminds me what kind of person I really am... a person who will not stand for those things.

You probably find this more disgusting than the above mentioned
a) because those actions are a product of war and therefore unavoidable? And hey... war is pretty far away from us aint it -
b) because the article state that it was a "mom" who was raped not a "woman", which immediately ticks off references to your own mother or wife making the action seem even more unbearable.

This is another case of something being blown out of proportion (seen in relations to similar cases of rape) because the media know you are gonna eat this up and talk about it with friends and coworkers and then read some more... just like whatshername little girl in Portugal... Maddie...

The action is the same no matter who it is done towards...

But of-course, it's disgusting. Rape is disgusting...

reply to post by Griff


To be honest, it probably didnt. It takes a bit of time for a mod to look into all the flagged material. Someone could have (should have) reported it on first view, flagged it, and by the time the admin staff got to it, 600 other people saw it.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by InSpiteOf]

"Givenmay google are not likely to put video screening in the hands of unpaid people across the internet"

I would do it for free!
They could like be reported and confirmed unwatchable by the staff but, I guess that is what is actually happening right now, so, it does'nt work!

My bad!

Originally posted by Givenmay
I wonder if these teens were friends with a child of hers?

She was only 25 so i doubt it.

Originally posted by Edn
You cant moderate a site like you tube video by video. You would need hundreds of people if not more dedicated just to screening videos to stop a backlog of videos a month long, which isn't exactly feasible. where do you suggest they get the money? they would need a new building, new equipment, then they have all those people to pay.

Money is not really a problem for the never ending wallet of cash Google appears to have, however, the logistics is still not really feasible. Getting people to mod it can add things like government involvement, personal spin, backlog, instant videos not going on, PLUS the language barrier.

Back in the days of a teenager there was a site called hot or not. In order to see the next picture you had to rate the picture you were currently looking at. Maybe something like that can be implemented for YouTube. Flag as inappropriate or give a star rating to see another video. The system is already in place, just make it compulsory.

For my own safety and the protection of others, there at the time, I'll not mention what city I was in, the time frame in which I was there, or the ppl involved, but I'll tell you this much. I once worked as an activist for the homeless. During a public forum the Mayor and City Manager were on the hot seat being asked to sign a contract with a neighborhood to clean up their homeless problem. In an attempt to get off the hook, the City Manager said, "There is a certain percentage of the population that we consider expendable." I'll never forget that comment. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and to this day I still can't believe he said that to the public! That said, there is no way to tell how much money was made off this horrific crime, but if money was made you can bet youtube got it's share.

I'm sorry, I like youtube as much as the next guy, but there's nothing like money to corrupt ppl into giving up their values. With today's technology, there is no excuse for things like this to happen, any oogle eyed idiot knows that a video like that would insite horror and reaction, it's hard for me to believe that the powers to be at youtube wouldn't have known that was being posted. It seems more likely that they allowed it to be posted for short time knowing that it would create outrage and then other's morbid curiousity would send them running to youtube looking for it, thereby boosting the usage of youtube, hense more money!

Just my opinion for what it's worth!

Originally posted by Griff
My question is:

Why did it take 600 viewers to finally flag the video? Sick world we live in.

Well it depends what the video was like, did it look like it was rape, maybe it was hard to tell. Maybe a lot did flag it, it just takes time for them to do anything about it, so within that time 600 people had clicked on it.

What I don't understand is, out of the 600 hundred people how did the kids end up on there? how did they find that video? I mean what!? Did someone tell them about it?

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
What I don't understand is, out of the 600 hundred people how did the kids end up on there? how did they find that video? I mean what!? Did someone tell them about it?

The title is badly worded on the website, well... maybe wonderfully worded, the problem like i said in the OP is that the title is misleading.

The kids saw the rape as it happened THEN it was put on YouTube. The kids didn't see it on YouTube.

[edit on 6/3/2008 by SilentShadow]

How many of you watched the beheading clips? The hanging of Saddam? The throwing of the puppy from the cliff?

That's the kind of world we live in, it's not right, but we do it.

No, we don't.

I say "we", because I didn't - wouldn't think of watching any such thing, and even protested to Anderson Cooper when one of the other journos on his show reported about Saddam in a way that I thought gross (he immediately replied and agreed with me, BTW) - and if I didn't, I am sure the same could be said of thousands, tens of thousands of other people.

I understand the point you're trying to make; and I am certainly not judging anyone (for watching), but I have a point, too.

There is no good reason for the general public watching such filth: none whatsoever. All it does is bring publicity - and with it money and POWER - where it's least needed.




[edit on 6-3-2008 by Vanitas]

If it were X, she would've been able to move (a bunch). If it were Rufies, she'd have been passed out and not remembered any of it. I've heard about people under anesthesia(sp? eek!) who were cognizant and felt everything during surgery but couldn't move or speak.

Since it WAS on YouTube and she knew the kids (invited them over?) she can break her silence and a jury can decide if it was rape, or not. Only...if she is not protesting...can a jury decide? At the very least, they can be charged with a lewd act in front of a minor...but....then so could she if they decide it was consensual.

I can't watch the beheadings, puppy throwing, etc videos. I couldn't even watch "28 Weeks Later"! Honestly, I think it affects people on a psychic level. Me, at least. I have to avoid the "Faces of Death" aisle at the video store. What freaks me out is the fact that there is a whole aisle full of "banned" stuff like that available. If you aren't cracked before you watch it, you must be afterward.

I just can't find rape, death and dismemberment entertaining. But I know many do.