FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

innocent until proven guilty

Jump to newest
 

By *reelove1969 OP   Couple
over a year ago

bristol

well it used to be ..is it a positive move that people are named and the bbc are notified before you are even made aware of any allegations as in the case of cliff richard ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

think esp in sex related cases you should be able to be anonymous if found not guilty then the other party should be named if the accused was named

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reelove1969 OP   Couple
over a year ago

bristol

how do i vote for you ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"think esp in sex related cases you should be able to be anonymous if found not guilty then the other party should be named if the accused was named "
agreed but...... sometimes the victim doesn't have the same £' as the accused, so, it will hardly correct the imbalance!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reelove1969 OP   Couple
over a year ago

bristol

sometimes the 'accused' ends up bankrupt ..out of a job ..minus a wife ..all over every tabloid paper and a year later

found 'not guilty' ...ehh ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"think esp in sex related cases you should be able to be anonymous if found not guilty then the other party should be named if the accused was named "

I agree that you should be anonymous. But I don't agree with naming a victim afterwards. Because half the time they are found innocent because of lack of evidence, not because they are innocent. That would be terrible for a victim to go through. I think, if they are found to be innocent then don't name anyone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reelove1969 OP   Couple
over a year ago

bristol

so should the accused get annonimity ..because its terrible losing your job ..family ..home etc when you havent even got to trial yet !!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reelove1969 OP   Couple
over a year ago

bristol

where do you get this 'half the time' ie 50% statistic from ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"where do you get this 'half the time' ie 50% statistic from ?"

The accused should get anonymity. It's not a statistic Half the time is just a saying, haven't you ever heard of it lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reelove1969 OP   Couple
over a year ago

bristol

appologies ..took it in literal sense

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"appologies ..took it in literal sense"

Haha. Don't worry about it x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"sometimes the 'accused' ends up bankrupt ..out of a job ..minus a wife ..all over every tabloid paper and a year later

found 'not guilty' ...ehh ??"

that's justice?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Police and CPS should only have the right to name people with whom they want to discuss matters having sought special Leave from the court - e.g., the Latvian guy suspected of killing the schoolgirl. Else you end with cases like the John Leslie one where the guy was suspected of multiple rapes, lost a very lucrative job on the back of it and never even had his day in court and have the chance to exonerate himself. It must have cost him such a vast amount, in every respect, yet officially he hasn't broken the law.

Just as naming and shaming is wrong on here - as it is open to abuse and there are two sides to every story - so it is wrong in the judicial system

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uke olovingmanMan
over a year ago

Gravesend

how do the media find out who is being investigated ... unless they are being informed or tipped off ... someone must be leaking the info out ... and getting a bung for their trouble ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"how do the media find out who is being investigated ... unless they are being informed or tipped off ... someone must be leaking the info out ... and getting a bung for their trouble ... "

The police are doing it. They did in the Cliff Richard case and there is an ongoing court case involving Sun " journalists" (pah) and dozens of police. Again tho...journalists in court...police? Don't seem to be.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"how do the media find out who is being investigated ... unless they are being informed or tipped off ... someone must be leaking the info out ... and getting a bung for their trouble ... "

The Cliff Richard swoop was leaked by the police. Very dangerous thing for them to do. There was a famous case in Notts. A guy was named by the police in connection with the rape and murder of a little girl in a public park. The guy was treated awfully by everyone for years - then it was found another man had perpetrated the crime. I've read too many of these sorts of situations. Naming before conviction can be too prejudicial. Too many assume guilt before it can be proven. Consider if you were called onto a jury and walked into court and saw Cliff Richard sat there. Chances are you would have your own ideas on his innocence or guilt before hearing any evidence. That is a corruption of the legal system

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"sometimes the 'accused' ends up bankrupt ..out of a job ..minus a wife ..all over every tabloid paper and a year later

found 'not guilty' ...ehh ??"

Happened to me (Stu) I was falsely accussed, lost my job, my home, fell out with friends and family and had irrepairable damage done to my relationship at the time so I no longer live with my daughters. Spent almost a year on bail under investigation before the police dropped the case and decided not to charge me. In a way that was worse than going to court and being found not guilty because in some peoples minds I wasnt cleared I just didnt leave enough evidence to be caught. Truth is I never even touched the women, she was a temp working in a section I ran in a factory, they said cut down on temps I picked her as she was useless. So she told my boss Id threatened to sack her if she didnt do me sexual favours then told the police Id raped her... She got cut from the factory anyway so did that to me for nothing!! But I cant do anything because my only legal course of revenge would be a civil case for deformation of carachter or slander which I would have to pay for and would be her word against mine....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"sometimes the 'accused' ends up bankrupt ..out of a job ..minus a wife ..all over every tabloid paper and a year later

found 'not guilty' ...ehh ??

Happened to me (Stu) I was falsely accussed, lost my job, my home, fell out with friends and family and had irrepairable damage done to my relationship at the time so I no longer live with my daughters. Spent almost a year on bail under investigation before the police dropped the case and decided not to charge me. In a way that was worse than going to court and being found not guilty because in some peoples minds I wasnt cleared I just didnt leave enough evidence to be caught. Truth is I never even touched the women, she was a temp working in a section I ran in a factory, they said cut down on temps I picked her as she was useless. So she told my boss Id threatened to sack her if she didnt do me sexual favours then told the police Id raped her... She got cut from the factory anyway so did that to me for nothing!! But I cant do anything because my only legal course of revenge would be a civil case for deformation of carachter or slander which I would have to pay for and would be her word against mine...."

Perfect case in point NO-ONE should be named, particularly in sex cases, until the case is in public court. Just dredges up trolls and gold-diggers jumping on a band wagon.

Those making false allegations should get same sentence as the accused would have got if found guilty!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

in general I agree with the idea of the accused not being named till the system has run its course however in some of the recent historical cases certainly 'Hall' it was only once he was named that others had the confidence to come forward and as there was no connection between he victims so collusion was ruled out etc and their evidence was very similar re his 'mo' he went down for his crimes..

had it just been a single victim making the complaint then the case may well have either not gone to trial or he could have walked after a trial and the other victims would still suffer etc..

also what about any potential new victims..?

its a tricky one yes as however it is there may well be victims either defied justice or victims after being accused and having ones name dragged through the media..

maybe its the generally held view with some that there is 'no smoke without fire' that needs to be addressed..?

given the amount of abuse that is now coming to light within some of our meant to be trusted institutions I don't think the current status will change..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

......& there's at least one guy out there who knows about sexual abuse within Westminster - but he cannot talk because the files have been lost (distroyed?) !!!

These guys make the laws ffs!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"well it used to be ..is it a positive move that people are named and the bbc are notified before you are even made aware of any allegations as in the case of cliff richard ?"
. As everyone is innocent unto proved guilty there should be no naming. Far too many people tend to assume that just because someone is arrested , they must be guilty . One of the key issues is that the police have unlimited resources available to them whereas those of defendents are very limited. It might help if cases where defendants were publicly named were not allowed to proceed . The onus would then be on the CPS / Police to maintain confidentiality .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"well it used to be ..is it a positive move that people are named and the bbc are notified before you are even made aware of any allegations as in the case of cliff richard ?. As everyone is innocent unto proved guilty there should be no naming. Far too many people tend to assume that just because someone is arrested , they must be guilty . One of the key issues is that the police have unlimited resources available to them whereas those of defendents are very limited. It might help if cases where defendants were publicly named were not allowed to proceed . The onus would then be on the CPS / Police to maintain confidentiality . "

isn't there also a case for people who do assume to sit back and maybe think 'if it were I being accused would I not want the rest to wait till after whatever outcome to judge me'..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top