blonde poker forum

But Jimmy Tarbuck's name is tarnished forever and the accuser has anonymity.

It just seems horribly unfair how these cases are dealt with by the powers that be.

Yeh, 6 accusers here, 10 elsewhere, so many randoms make up this shit, but if they said there house was robbed we'd believe them, right? 

how would you change the rules?

I agree that it is absolultely an uncomfortable and distressing thing to see someone innocent go through this, but on the other hand affording anonymity means more real victims come forward and can see justice. It's not a nice or comfortable choice, but it remains so, a necessary choice to make.

If, as I believe, on balance more people come forward and real offenders face justice as a result of anonymity than innocent men have their reputations tarnished (and I agree that the stigmatization remains forever, not just until innocence is proclaimed....which is worrisome, but believe this has a lot to do with media reporting and raises questions of open access to justice/clarity..) then the system is, to the best of its ability, working.

These are uncomfortable issues of course, and remember of course that in cases where we can show that there was malice or a deliberate attempt to mislead, anonymity can be waived and prosecutions tabled.

It's all a very uncomfortable business though, whichever way you slice it.

I have no idea of how to change the law and admit to having a tenuous personal connection as my mum used to be friendly with Jimmy's wife Pauline many years ago so I find it painful to hear suggestions of his impropriety when there were none at all at the time, because had there been any, I'm sure that they would have been circulating on the rumour-mill amongst the show-bizz crowd.

Unfortunately cash is motivation enough for some peole t make stuff up, I have no doubt there were some bullshitters in the Savile case looking for a pay day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161

It's obviously a very tricky thing to deal with in general and part of the confusion is that we just really don't understand how long-term memory, or the memory recall of events as children/young adults really works. Sometimes indeed people are misremembering things that didn't happen, not being deliberately deceptive. edit: and to that point, @woodsey - no doubt deception/cash incentive does occur, but not the sole circumstances in which an innocent man is put through something as horrific as this.

No doubt that it is painful for those wrongly accused, at a level I couldn't even begin to comprehend. I really think the solution here is tighter control on reporting in the media, not just in the case of celebrities but for all accused. The counter argument to that, however, is that often if an abuser has abused one child/person, they've done it again and public dissemination of certain reportable facts may aid/encourage other victims to come forward. I really think there is no logical equilibrium to be found here -- it's a delicate balancing act for sure and suspect the only thing to do is trust that the judiciary, who certainly spend a great deal of their time considering such issues, are better placed to make the 'best' decision in the circumstances.

Jeez dole out money with no evidence or proof.... 'yeah that Jimmy Saville touched me 40 years ago whilst we were alone with no witnesses'... 'ah ok here's some money... hope you feel better...' would you like some counselling?'... nah ur alright mate ..I'm off to Benidorm....makes a mockery of any true victims...

By the way was any solid evidence ever gathered against Saville apart from people saying so... or we just assuming he was bang guilty because loads of people stuck their hands up when they sniffed blood...so much has been written and said i got all confused half way through....

Maybe I am a bit naïve but can it really be as simple as that? ie you say you were abused so you get money?

Is that a serious question as to Savile's guilt?

Not from my comment.

I see 400 allegations ... I don't see any proof.... Is there any clear 100% irrefutable proof ? Or is the weight of allegation enough ?...we see all the other celebrity prosecutions falling apart with the exception of hall who held his hands up.. In the light of cases coming down to word against word and the because there historic no evidence can be presented..  Whose to say savile gets prosecuted and is not cleared ?.... You can correct me if there is some evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt of saviles guilt...

It was widely known about Jimmy Savile before the allegations came out after his death. Unfortunately it was only after his death people started to take notice of the allegations and do something about it.

Including some bullshitters looking for a pay day...

Also I believe anonymity for both parties until proven guilty and then the guilty party, accuser or alleged culprit, should be humiliated in the press.

Unfortunately you are right there mate.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

What does widely known mean... I could say to twenty people I saw a celebrity touching someone up and it gets repeated 100 fold despite it being untrue so it is now widely know person X abused someone ? ...hearsay isn't evidence in a court which is exactly why guilty or not these celebs going to court are getting found not guilty.... If we are going to base guilt on how many people say it's true then we are really in trouble

But that could and does happen with the current system.

Sorry, maybe not widely known to Joe Public but certainly in certain circles. I heard stories about him maybe 6 years ago and even mentioned to a friend that he would be the next celeb to be done.

The accusers don't get public humiliation in te press if they lose the case.

But they should do if they falsely accuse someone of child molestation.

Define false pls.

Not black and white.

Which is fine til a miscarriage of justice...

You heard ?.. Guilty then :)

I know you're only pissing with me now which I can take from you but not from that muppet Celtic :)

I.e proven in a court of law that it is not true. How much clearer would you like it?

Me pissing with you? As if I would?

How's your daughter mate? You know, the 17/18 year old one? :)

She good thanks, she loves Nandos mate.

Unfortunately she doesn't like Scotts :)

😪

Sorry if I sound brusque btw, not intentional, just type quick on phone :)

What I mean is can you prove intent? Can you prove there was malice? Showing that an event didn't happen (or wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt to make out an offence) is NOT the same as saying the complainant did something morally culpable or wrong.

You're making (IMO) a stretch too far and want to remove anonymity which is so huge for bringing actual abusers to justice too easily.

Note that where malice or intent or a 'morally culpable' act is commited by complainant they can ALREADY lose anon status and be prosecuted but that needs to be examined on its own merit and not as a direct consequence of a related but not causative innocent verdict.

Also remember it is possible that courts make a mistake and dont convict when abuse actually occurred (eg technicality) but double jeopardy protects re-prosecution/re-trial. So would you ever want a genuine abuse victim to be called a liar and a money grabber etc?

I know, I know, I'm very soapboxy about this issue. I'm not normally this much of a prick, honest :)

No probs mate, didn't take it any other way other than being objective. I do like to look at things simply but I do appreciate this is not as clear cut as I make out. Raw subject for me as I know someone who was accused of some disgusting things which turned out not to be true. Luckily the police realised this was the case and didn't pursue it beyond an initial interview.

and no Celtic it wasn't me.

Quite right too

:)up

Yeah I'm also v passionate about this as something similar affected a friend of mine which obv affects how I think about it as well. That's personally why I choose to trust that judiciary can remain objective where I can't.