The Police Drop All Charges

[celtic]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

[the sicilian]

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.

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

[bobAlike]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

But that could and does happen with the current system.

[bobAlike]

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.

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

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.

[celtic]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

But that could and does happen with the current system.

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

[bobAlike]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

But that could and does happen with the current system.

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.

[mulhuzz]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

But that could and does happen with the current system.

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.

[celtic]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

But that could and does happen with the current system.

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.

Which is fine til a miscarriage of justice...

[the sicilian]

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.

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

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.

You heard ?.. Guilty then

[bobAlike]

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.

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

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.

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

[bobAlike]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

But that could and does happen with the current system.

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.

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

[celtic]

Me pissing with you? As if I would?

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

[bobAlike]

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

[celtic]

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

😪

[mulhuzz]

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.

That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.

But that could and does happen with the current system.

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.

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

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