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

Should name and shame be allowed?

Jump to newest
 

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

The floodgates have been opened and people are all over the media accusing people of sexual harassment and/ or assault.

The accused person gets no chance of fighting this- people seem to assume it's true before any kind of evidence or trial. They are losing jobs, friends, everything. But what if it's not true?

Should there be a change in the law so public naming and shaming is against the law?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hortieWoman
over a year ago

Northampton

Yes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *offee with MilkCouple
over a year ago

Over the roundabout and then turn right.

They should do it the same way as they do with Court. No naming and shaming until there is a guilty verdict.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"They should do it the same way as they do with Court. No naming and shaming until there is a guilty verdict. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Absolutely, only with a conviction should people be named.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Yes. Absolutely it should. And is.

I'm sick of the automatic assumption that women can't be believed. Coming forward is a horrific experience, why do you think so many keep quiet?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

u would be first on my list huni

I could name 15 just today only this thread would be full of names

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"u would be first on my list huni

I could name 15 just today only this thread would be full of names

"

Who?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Innocent till proven guilty

If they’re proven innocent without a doubt, do you think the accuser should then be tried?

Half of me thinks they should, but the other half wonders if it may put actual victims off going to authorities

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hoenixAdAstraWoman
over a year ago

Hiding in the shadows

Yes.

A very long time ago, I was accused of something, put through months of hell, had to quit my job, my son was bullied, people I thought my friends turned their backs on me.

Eventually my accuser admitted she'd made it all up, she was charged with wasting police time.

It took a very long time for me & my family to get over it.

There are people today who still won't speak to me.

It should always be innocent til proven guilty

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Yes. Absolutely it should. And is.

I'm sick of the automatic assumption that women can't be believed. Coming forward is a horrific experience, why do you think so many keep quiet? "

Women or men should come forward to the police and be believed and supported. Not to the media. Or for non criminal at work offences to the boss or HR in large companies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Yes. Absolutely it should. And is.

I'm sick of the automatic assumption that women can't be believed. Coming forward is a horrific experience, why do you think so many keep quiet? "

I can see both sides. If I'd been attacked I'd want to let as many people know as possible so they could avoid that person. But also so that if anyone else had been attacked they'd feel more able to speak out because they weren't 'the only one'.

But if a person is lying and the accused is innocent, there's always suspicion against the accused person. They are very rarely truly believed to be innocent even if proved so in court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"They should do it the same way as they do with Court. No naming and shaming until there is a guilty verdict. "

Agreed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Am I a sex pest when I message anyone in here?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"Yes. Absolutely it should. And is.

I'm sick of the automatic assumption that women can't be believed. Coming forward is a horrific experience, why do you think so many keep quiet? "

There wasn't any money in it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

The innocent should be protected.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *i couple LlandudnoCouple
over a year ago

llandudno junction

I named a user on here as giving me herpes

We were in a relationship for a long time so it wasn't a bare back meet or anything to do with fabswingers

The reasons I named him wAs I found out he was planning on doing the same to other women

Some may call me bitter I just think it's right that no woman goes through what I have

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"The innocent should be protected. "

Agree... but.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city

It is against the law. In America they will print if they have a source and pass the legal problems onto them, so you would have to sue the people.

But even printing the truth can get you in legal trouble. Hulk Hogan got 300 million for a story about him that was true.

In the UK celebs take out super injunctions. Remember Jeremy Clarkson had some, then eventually turned out he was cheating on his loyal wife while bullying people at work.

It only came out because a bully story got ahead of him and he couldn't cover up his assault of a person.

Didn't hurt him though, and everyone complained BBC dropped him.. it was that exact attitude that filled the BBC up with horrible people and for people to look the other way at Kevin Spaceys antics in the vic.

Chris Brown beat the living shit out of a woman and it didn't really hurt him much.

Americans have had their fill of white men getting sex through positions of authority so are taking glee in outing them. They don't really care about women's rights etc. Just selling stories.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

A woman down the road from me accused her husband of some very serious sexual charges not related to herself if you get my drift. It was all over town in a flash of cats piss. He hung himself, he was a good bloke. She made it up because she wanted to go off with someone else. She was charged with perverting the cause of justice. So no I don't think people men or women should be named, not victim or the person accused. People do tell lies, just as others are telling the truth xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"The innocent should be protected.

Agree... but....."

But? Name everyone and hope they are all guilty?

If the police are involved they would be wary of doing anything again, I would think. Until they have been proven guilty (and even that could be on the say so of one person), they should remain un-named.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I named a user on here as giving me herpes

We were in a relationship for a long time so it wasn't a bare back meet or anything to do with fabswingers

The reasons I named him wAs I found out he was planning on doing the same to other women

Some may call me bitter I just think it's right that no woman goes through what I have"

Good on you for this one

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Yes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"A woman down the road from me accused her husband of some very serious sexual charges not related to herself if you get my drift. It was all over town in a flash of cats piss. He hung himself, he was a good bloke. She made it up because she wanted to go off with someone else. She was charged with perverting the cause of justice. So no I don't think people men or women should be named, not victim or the person accused. People do tell lies, just as others are telling the truth xxx"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Am I a sex pest when I message anyone in here? "

No sorry, perhaps you need to step it up a bit more...maybe a few more cock pics, less talk and more leering should do it

Peach x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilent.KnightMan
over a year ago

Swindon

I think there should be some kind of court proceeding in a case by case basis. Usually the case for naming is to allow other victims to come forward... if like someone to weigh the benefit of that to the damage done to the individual. For every case like the one above, there is a radio dj ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach

There's a balance that needs to be struck. If it's not been reported to the police then to my mind it's a very dodgy thing to do.

Once the Police are actively investigating, or it is going to court, then it can help for names to be made public (other victims/witnesses etc.).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Personally I think that what is going on right now is an aberration. I think that for a long time important people have acted in ways that aren't ok, and have gotten away with it because of their importance, and I think the dam broke. Eventually this phase will pass, but that sort of behavior will be curtailed to some extent.

I don't particularly like the climate of accusations at the moment, but I don't think its an altogether bad thing, either. Many of those accused have admitted to, and apologized for, the behavior they've been accused of, so innocence isn't even a defense in many cases.

And I don't know about the legality of it here, but in the US if any of these big name people feel they are truly being unjustly accused, they can sue for defamation and libel, so they have some protections. For the average person, its a bit more tricky, but they have some protections from false accusations, too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"The innocent should be protected.

Agree... but.....

But? Name everyone and hope they are all guilty?

If the police are involved they would be wary of doing anything again, I would think. Until they have been proven guilty (and even that could be on the say so of one person), they should remain un-named. "

No not name everyone, I mean I agree protect the innocent but at the accusation stage how do we know they are innocent?

Woman accuses man of serious assault. He's done the same to countless women but it's not been proved yet and he denied it.

Woman accuses man of serious assault. She's just pissed off at him because he wouldn't date her.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

There has to be some sense and professionalism in this and atm it does seem like a witch hunt which if some od these people are innocent then the damage is already done and there is no coming back from it.

Like people have said we need these people to come forward and allow those in charge to investigate etc but sadly we are a society these days of automatically think someone is guilty and on top of the addiction to social media it only takes 1 person to make a comment and everyone knows.

Once that happens it opens a whole shitstorm of trouble for them and their families which cannot be recovered from

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

The guy involved has been publicly named by the BBC in the missing teenager incident in Dorset before he has been charged with anything.

What is that going to do to him for the rest of his life should he be innocent of any such crime ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackey102Man
over a year ago

South Norfolk

[Removed by poster at 18/11/17 14:40:09]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Case in point cliff Richard wrongly outed as a molester, big story broken exclusively by the beeb as police raid his home,two years of hell for him only to be proved innocent but his accusser still enjoys anonymity and has other accusations against famous people but cliff has had to fight to clear his name and sue both police and beeb for publicly humiliation and yet the beeb still have the gall to play his records as if nothing has happened

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I know two blokes accused falsely of sexual assaults both had to move away from home and in both cases it was proven they either didn't engage in sexor it was consensual but they lost friends family and jobs and were left in limbo for months while they're accusers went about their normal life's and didn't face any charges just a caution for wasting police time but these guys will always have a stigma surrounding them as everyone believes where there's smoke there's fire and because it's been in print it must be gospel .I think no one should be named whilst an investigation is under way and only named if convicted of a crime or false accusations

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

@ bestrideinthepark and if the person doing the accusing is found to be telling lies then that person should be publicly named , so others can stay away from them as much as possible to avoid another incident like that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

It's a difficult one, having personally been involved in a crime where there wasn't enough evidence to convict but if any other victims come forward then there would be I think naming can be good. But agree that in some instances it can wreck lives of innocent people x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"@ bestrideinthepark and if the person doing the accusing is found to be telling lies then that person should be publicly named , so others can stay away from them as much as possible to avoid another incident like that. "
agreed hence why I said that lol but sex and personalities sell papers and it's juicier if it's rumoured to be non consensual and the paper can hype it up more it also means that if the accused goes to court and us tried by jury they will never get an impartial jury as the papers will have predujuiced them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

There is a sketch in the children's program Horrible Histories. If someone didn't like or agree with someone, no matter how trivial, they pointed the finger and outed them as a witch. The trial was conducted by ducking stool. If you drowned you were innocent if you didn't, you were guilty and burnt at the steak.

I think naming some one before they have been proven guilty in court paves the way for possible innocent people to suffer trial by vigilante and press.

Hopefully the publicity of a guilty conviction would encourage others to come forward if there are any.

Should victims that stay silent feel some responsibility for future offences by the perpetrator of the crime towards themselves?

We need to create a society were people are comfortable to come forward but people that falsely accuse are held accountable.

Innocent till proven guilty. I don't want a vigilante society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

There is a huge difference between naming a no mark and naming someone who has influence and power. You are risking everything by accusing someone with power. Just as you would by turning them down.

But what was most telling was the person who named Kevin spacey was believed immediately, the people naming weinstein weren't until many more witnesses came forward. I'll let you do the maths.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Not sure why anyone would be concerned about naming if they've done nothing wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Yes. Absolutely it should. And is.

I'm sick of the automatic assumption that women can't be believed. Coming forward is a horrific experience, why do you think so many keep quiet? "

thee entire sex, - really?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Not sure why anyone would be concerned about naming if they've done nothing wrong. "

Really? So it's acceptable to run off to the media to sell a story which can damage another's life job home and future where there is nothing behind the naming and shaming other than a malicious desire to hurt another?

And isn't Billy no name as entitled to the usual innocent until proven guilty just as much as some celebrity. Would their life be any less destroyed by a naming and shaming culture. Or does it only matter if your famous?

Before anyone decides to lunch me I AM NOT defending abuse by anyone against another. But abuse takes many forms.

Is naming and shaming just another example of that?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"There is a huge difference between naming a no mark and naming someone who has influence and power. You are risking everything by accusing someone with power. Just as you would by turning them down."

I'm sure the no mark being named falsely would think otherwise.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Not sure why anyone would be concerned about naming if they've done nothing wrong.

Really? So it's acceptable to run off to the media to sell a story which can damage another's life job home and future where there is nothing behind the naming and shaming other than a malicious desire to hurt another?

And isn't Billy no name as entitled to the usual innocent until proven guilty just as much as some celebrity. Would their life be any less destroyed by a naming and shaming culture. Or does it only matter if your famous?

Before anyone decides to lunch me I AM NOT defending abuse by anyone against another. But abuse takes many forms.

Is naming and shaming just another example of that?"

As had been demonstrated,the media aren't interested in a no mark. Infact they wouldn't be interested in a superstar if it were merely a couple of women naming. But oh yes, they're interested if it's a single man doing the accusing....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Not sure why anyone would be concerned about naming if they've done nothing wrong.

Really? So it's acceptable to run off to the media to sell a story which can damage another's life job home and future where there is nothing behind the naming and shaming other than a malicious desire to hurt another?

And isn't Billy no name as entitled to the usual innocent until proven guilty just as much as some celebrity. Would their life be any less destroyed by a naming and shaming culture. Or does it only matter if your famous?

Before anyone decides to lunch me I AM NOT defending abuse by anyone against another. But abuse takes many forms.

Is naming and shaming just another example of that?

As had been demonstrated,the media aren't interested in a no mark. Infact they wouldn't be interested in a superstar if it were merely a couple of women naming. But oh yes, they're interested if it's a single man doing the accusing...."

which single man?

It seems to me that these 'victims' were inspired by their Weinstein counterparts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"Not sure why anyone would be concerned about naming if they've done nothing wrong. "

It destroys peoples lifes. If someone is named in the media for sexual crimes, that sticks for a long time / ever. Thats the case wheyher it's someone famous or just someone local.

The being cleared bit is page 6 news, if at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

No, it becomes trial by media with no recourse. For those found not guilty in subsequent cases, when a the last time the accuser was subject to intrusive reporting on all they do?

If a crime has occurred, there's a judicial process(No it's not perfect).

As for comments about women not being believed? I think there's plenty in the press to evidence this isn't gender specific and shouldn't be seen as such.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Not a strong response

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Not a strong response "

I honestly don't have time or the will to spell out.,again, that people are reinforcing my argument when it's clear, from this thread and many months of other threads that people here don't have the intelligence to consider anything but their own views.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"Not a strong response

I honestly don't have time or the will to spell out.,again, that people are reinforcing my argument when it's clear, from this thread and many months of other threads that people here don't have the intelligence to consider anything but their own views."

I think people are stating both sides of the argument fairly sensibly. There was one quite ranty post though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

So if you are named as an abuser publicly and your innocent it's ok ?? Your happy to have your world wrecked by a malicious person who wants their 15 mins of fame

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"Not sure why anyone would be concerned about naming if they've done nothing wrong.

It destroys peoples lifes. If someone is named in the media for sexual crimes, that sticks for a long time / ever. Thats the case wheyher it's someone famous or just someone local.

The being cleared bit is page 6 news, if at all."

Exactly, mud sticks, and ruins lives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

The problem is, is that people directly involved emotionally,can't deal with this objectively.

That's the only way a justice system can operate or it becomes a lunch mob process. I'm sorry if that offends but there's a strong case for that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilent.KnightMan
over a year ago

Swindon

It’s an extreme example ....

But suppose you were looking for childcare, found a person you liked, but a quick google said they had been accused (but not proven guilty) of abuse. Would you risk it ? If I’m honest I probably wouldn’t ... hugely selfish I know.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Not a strong response

I honestly don't have time or the will to spell out.,again, that people are reinforcing my argument when it's clear, from this thread and many months of other threads that people here don't have the intelligence to consider anything but their own views.

I think people are stating both sides of the argument fairly sensibly. There was one quite ranty post though."

Exactly , - thank goodness for healthy mass debating

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Not a strong response

I honestly don't have time or the will to spell out.,again, that people are reinforcing my argument when it's clear, from this thread and many months of other threads that people here don't have the intelligence to consider anything but their own views."

Isn't that exactly what you're doing...and with a heavier hand than anyone else!

I hear what you say about the press not being interested in a no mark but innocent no marks still have live in a community where their reputation is left in tatters. And they can't afford the same physical protection that many celebrities can or, have the luxury of being able to just fuck off to somewhere new.

People have been making complaints about wienstien for years and he's been getting away with being able to settle out off court leaving him free to carry on with his abuse. What's that about?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"One of my friends lives was ruined by a false sexual allegation , all over the local press on front page .

"

Had similar here with a mate who used to run disco's after it got out he was "meant to be involved" he couldn't get work anywhere ended up having to move up country and even though it was almost 25 years ago when he comes home to visit some local people know who he is and think he was telling lies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Everyone should be innocent till proven guilty and not the over way round and if irravuptable evidence is presented then yes name them so others can come forward and their claims investigated,but if there's even a shadow of doubt then no annonimity should be respected

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Absolutely, only with a conviction should people be named."

Whole heartedly agree, along with accuser.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I really dislike the current trial by media and presumptions of guilt, as abhorrent as allegations are. It seems so against what I perceive to be fair and just, when we have legal systems (albeit imperfect) that ought only to be used Imo. And the media should be largely silenced from the manner they are operating atm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

In reality we all have Weinstein down as guilty, he has not been charged yet let alone convicted. He appears to be a sleaze bag.

We have Spacey down as an abuser and as a result hundreds of people lost work on the tv show that got cancelled. But no actual criminal offence has happened or been reported.

The ducking stool mentality mentioned above is about the size of it. And the worst of it is we all get suckered in by it, I believed Freddy Star and Cliff Richard must be guilty neither were.

I will do my best to ignore all press allegations until there is actually a case, and somebody is found to be telling the truth. Currently Harvey and Kevin are innocent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear. "

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

"

I don’t think a genuine victim dealing with trauma is really able to hurry up their ability to be able to feel safe and able to report something like that just because a legal time limit is involved. Nor should they feel under pressure to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Nah get it all out there. No smoke without fire I say

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Hang, draw and quarter them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Nah get it all out there. No smoke without fire I say"

A certain actor who was on coronation street was taken to court accused of r*pe and found not guilty. The women in question and the charge, if memory serves, was described by the judge as unbelievable....no smoke without fire, you say?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Nah get it all out there. No smoke without fire I say

A certain actor who was on coronation street was taken to court accused of r*pe and found not guilty. The women in question and the charge, if memory serves, was described by the judge as unbelievable....no smoke without fire, you say?"

No smoke without fire I said yes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *addybear_purplehazyCouple
over a year ago

Worthing


"Am I a sex pest when I message anyone in here? "

When you message once, no you're not a sex pest.

If you persist or don't respect an answer then potentially, yes you are.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

As I said I understand why people don't come forward. But there are consequences for delay.

Every victim has a duty of care to society and potential future victims. If you say nothing until the alleged abuser is dead they will never be guilty in the UK, because they will never go to court.

The American system is as imperfect as ours, but I think if it is used properly, there is a potential for it to work better.

Harsh reality is if you wait decades to report you need counciling not justice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"As I said I understand why people don't come forward. But there are consequences for delay.

Every victim has a duty of care to society and potential future victims. If you say nothing until the alleged abuser is dead they will never be guilty in the UK, because they will never go to court.

The American system is as imperfect as ours, but I think if it is used properly, there is a potential for it to work better.

Harsh reality is if you wait decades to report you need counciling not justice. "

I don’t think it’s at all on the victim to have to worry about others, actually. I know what you’re trying to say but I strongly feel that a genuine victim has enough to handle in coming to terms with their trauma that any other judgements made by those not in their situation about their obligations are both irrelevant, lacking compassion and wrong. And your last statement is your opinion, and really not a reality as you like to state.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

[Removed by poster at 19/11/17 00:57:59]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East

Innocent until proven guilty.

Courts should try the accused not the press.

Press coverage could compromise the trial. A jury could be swayed easily to convict by press coverage. On the flip side a guilty person could actually get off on a technicality. It has been known.

I sympathise strongly with victims of any abuse. Efforts should continue to be made to get them to come forward. Naming and shaming should not be part of that effort. I don't have the answers to that problem. I truly wish I did.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Absolutely, only with a conviction should people be named.

Whole heartedly agree, along with accuser.

Why should the accuser be named?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East


"Absolutely, only with a conviction should people be named.

Whole heartedly agree, along with accuser.

Why should the accuser be named?"

They shouldn't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"The floodgates have been opened and people are all over the media accusing people of sexual harassment and/ or assault.

The accused person gets no chance of fighting this- people seem to assume it's true before any kind of evidence or trial. They are losing jobs, friends, everything. But what if it's not true?

Should there be a change in the law so public naming and shaming is against the law?"

Yes, naming and shaming before conviction in court is wrong on so many levels!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"And your last statement is your opinion, and really not a reality as you like to state. "

Total reality for any that reported abuses by an already dead dj, or an out of time report on American comedian nobody can have justice in those cases so mental health help is all we have to offer.

We need to find and fix the problem that causes victims not to come forward immediately, if we are ever to make progress.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"And your last statement is your opinion, and really not a reality as you like to state.

Total reality for any that reported abuses by an already dead dj, or an out of time report on American comedian nobody can have justice in those cases so mental health help is all we have to offer.

We need to find and fix the problem that causes victims not to come forward immediately, if we are ever to make progress. "

Your post read as if you were stating justice wasn’t helpful. That was what I was critiquing. And maybe what we really need to work on is the societal constructs that allow abusers to thrive and understand why people abuse. Not focus on the fixing solely being at the prosecutorial end.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Nah get it all out there. No smoke without fire I say

A certain actor who was on coronation street was taken to court accused of r*pe and found not guilty. The women in question and the charge, if memory serves, was described by the judge as unbelievable....no smoke without fire, you say?"

Cliff Richard was another one that was named and shamed by press before he was charged! Literally for just being took in for questioning he's whole career and life was spread all over papers. He lost a lot financially and since all charges were dropped/found not guilty I think he sued for compensation and won!!

It's not just unfair on the innocent but on their friends and family because it effects them all x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

I don’t think a genuine victim dealing with trauma is really able to hurry up their ability to be able to feel safe and able to report something like that just because a legal time limit is involved. Nor should they feel under pressure to. "

Some of the victims are or were children at the time. They might not even have understood the implications of what has happened to them. Being so young, it's doubtful if they would understand fully what rites they have or of correct procedure. They would probably also be very wary of trusting other grown ups.

I can see why people that were abused as children take so long to come forward. A time limit would be a bad thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Nah get it all out there. No smoke without fire I say

A certain actor who was on coronation street was taken to court accused of r*pe and found not guilty. The women in question and the charge, if memory serves, was described by the judge as unbelievable....no smoke without fire, you say?"

I'd forgotten that he wasn't guilty!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Nah get it all out there. No smoke without fire I say

A certain actor who was on coronation street was taken to court accused of r*pe and found not guilty. The women in question and the charge, if memory serves, was described by the judge as unbelievable....no smoke without fire, you say?

Cliff Richard was another one that was named and shamed by press before he was charged! Literally for just being took in for questioning he's whole career and life was spread all over papers. He lost a lot financially and since all charges were dropped/found not guilty I think he sued for compensation and won!!

It's not just unfair on the innocent but on their friends and family because it effects them all x "

exactly, - but somehow some cannot even imagine this

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East


"And your last statement is your opinion, and really not a reality as you like to state.

Total reality for any that reported abuses by an already dead dj, or an out of time report on American comedian nobody can have justice in those cases so mental health help is all we have to offer.

We need to find and fix the problem that causes victims not to come forward immediately, if we are ever to make progress.

Your post read as if you were stating justice wasn’t helpful. That was what I was critiquing. And maybe what we really need to work on is the societal constructs that allow abusers to thrive and understand why people abuse. Not focus on the fixing solely being at the prosecutorial end. "

That's a bloody good point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

"

How can they prove anything either way when it's decades later?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I see this morning Aled Jones has been dropped by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation over alleged sexual harassment claims.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I see this morning Aled Jones has been dropped by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation over alleged sexual harassment claims. "
who did he abuse allegedly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"who did he abuse allegedly"

Doesn't say apart from its one of 25 "live cases" being probed by the BBC, My question is if they believe there to be any substance to a claim then the police should be involved not one of their old boys brigade probes where it takes 30 years for the truth to come out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Absolutely be named and shamed, once found guilty

Trial by media is ridiculous

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"who did he abuse allegedly

Doesn't say apart from its one of 25 "live cases" being probed by the BBC, My question is if they believe there to be any substance to a claim then the police should be involved not one of their old boys brigade probes where it takes 30 years for the truth to come out. "
no doubt it will be headline news tomorrow and the no smoke without fire brigade will be putting in their two penny worth

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"no doubt it will be headline news tomorrow and the no smoke without fire brigade will be putting in their two penny worth"

I'm just getting my pitchfork and ducking stool ready !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"Innocent till proven guilty

If they’re proven innocent without a doubt, do you think the accuser should then be tried?

Half of me thinks they should, but the other half wonders if it may put actual victims off going to authorities "

Not guilty is not the same as it didn't happen. Proving guilt is a different burden of law than proving something happened.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"who did he abuse allegedly

Doesn't say apart from its one of 25 "live cases" being probed by the BBC, My question is if they believe there to be any substance to a claim then the police should be involved not one of their old boys brigade probes where it takes 30 years for the truth to come out. "

30 years, - isn't that what happens when the police or army investigate themselves?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Innocent till proven guilty

If they’re proven innocent without a doubt, do you think the accuser should then be tried?

Half of me thinks they should, but the other half wonders if it may put actual victims off going to authorities

Not guilty is not the same as it didn't happen. Proving guilt is a different burden of law than proving something happened.

"

I don't understand. If they prove it happened then aren't they guilty?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"Innocent till proven guilty

If they’re proven innocent without a doubt, do you think the accuser should then be tried?

Half of me thinks they should, but the other half wonders if it may put actual victims off going to authorities

Not guilty is not the same as it didn't happen. Proving guilt is a different burden of law than proving something happened.

I don't understand. If they prove it happened then aren't they guilty?"

Not necessarily. The offence they are charged with might mean they are not guilty. Think about cases where someone has been killed, such as being shot by a farmer on a break and entry. If charged with murder then they are not guilty because intent unlikely to be proved.

I'm avoiding talking about your OP on this as this area is littered with cases where the incident is known to gave happened and not guilty is the verdict.

We do not have anonymity for the accused in any crime in this country. To introduce it for this would mean introducing it for everything. Think about what that means for public appeals, for investigations and for getting others to come forward.

And now I'll bow out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Innocent till proven guilty

If they’re proven innocent without a doubt, do you think the accuser should then be tried?

Half of me thinks they should, but the other half wonders if it may put actual victims off going to authorities

Not guilty is not the same as it didn't happen. Proving guilt is a different burden of law than proving something happened.

I don't understand. If they prove it happened then aren't they guilty?

Not necessarily. The offence they are charged with might mean they are not guilty. Think about cases where someone has been killed, such as being shot by a farmer on a break and entry. If charged with murder then they are not guilty because intent unlikely to be proved.

I'm avoiding talking about your OP on this as this area is littered with cases where the incident is known to gave happened and not guilty is the verdict.

We do not have anonymity for the accused in any crime in this country. To introduce it for this would mean introducing it for everything. Think about what that means for public appeals, for investigations and for getting others to come forward.

And now I'll bow out."

Thank you for explaining.

Good points. I think my final decision is still that I can see both sides. Can't win either way. False accusations a risk but also need public appeals. And not guilty verdicts when guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

How can they prove anything either way when it's decades later?"

I don't know. I'm more skeptical than that.

Take this whole thing with Roy Moore - the guy gets accused of chasing around and dating 14/15 year old girls when he's in his 30s. There are contemporaneous accounts, his signature is on a young girl's yearbook, multiple accusers stepping forward. Only....he was a Judge or the District Attorney at the time of many of the alleged abuses so people kept quiet, supposedly. Now he's running for the Senate and these women come forward because they don't think he should be a senator. But the statute of limitations has long passed. What do we do then? Should these events, which are no longer prosecutable, but which have some evidence, contemporaneous accounts, and multiple accusers, not influence people's votes in an election? I'd want to know these things if I were a voter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

How can they prove anything either way when it's decades later?

I don't know. I'm more skeptical than that.

Take this whole thing with Roy Moore - the guy gets accused of chasing around and dating 14/15 year old girls when he's in his 30s. There are contemporaneous accounts, his signature is on a young girl's yearbook, multiple accusers stepping forward. Only....he was a Judge or the District Attorney at the time of many of the alleged abuses so people kept quiet, supposedly. Now he's running for the Senate and these women come forward because they don't think he should be a senator. But the statute of limitations has long passed. What do we do then? Should these events, which are no longer prosecutable, but which have some evidence, contemporaneous accounts, and multiple accusers, not influence people's votes in an election? I'd want to know these things if I were a voter. "

But how can anyone know the truth either way? What if the women have been paid to say the things by an opponent?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

How can they prove anything either way when it's decades later?

I don't know. I'm more skeptical than that.

Take this whole thing with Roy Moore - the guy gets accused of chasing around and dating 14/15 year old girls when he's in his 30s. There are contemporaneous accounts, his signature is on a young girl's yearbook, multiple accusers stepping forward. Only....he was a Judge or the District Attorney at the time of many of the alleged abuses so people kept quiet, supposedly. Now he's running for the Senate and these women come forward because they don't think he should be a senator. But the statute of limitations has long passed. What do we do then? Should these events, which are no longer prosecutable, but which have some evidence, contemporaneous accounts, and multiple accusers, not influence people's votes in an election? I'd want to know these things if I were a voter.

But how can anyone know the truth either way? What if the women have been paid to say the things by an opponent? "

But that's exactly why I mention the contemporaneous accounts. Contemporaneous writings and witnesses are very important, legally, because they get rid of doubt regarding timing. There are people who verified that these things happened - that they were made aware of them contemporaneous to the timing of the events. So, then what? What about the signed yearbook? What about officials who confirmed that he was banned from a mall because he was harassing high school girls there?

I'm not trying to limit your thread to this one individual, because I know it isn't about one individual, but I find this case indicative because its a situation where he is trying to gain a position based on his character....so it's fair, in my mind, to call his character into question when enough evidence is presented. And the fact remains that he can't be tried. It's too late. And he was in a position of power when he could have been tried - a position of power within the court system, no less! I don't think these things are as simple as "a court should decide" or "why wait so long".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I agree - innocent until proven guilty. But here's an question that I'm curious about having read these comments: What do those of you who want a court case say to those alleged victims whose cases are barred because of the statute of limitations? What should we all think, then? Especially in the case of multiple different accusers?

I'm genuinely asking, because I think these situations are difficult and the answers aren't always clear.

We don't have that here so are less aware of its implications.

I have a personal problem with people not reporting crimes promptly. Yes I am aware there are reasons etc. But decades later there really can't be real evidence. So a statute of limitations makes sense. But it should also focus the victims on reporting in time if it works properly.

How can they prove anything either way when it's decades later?

I don't know. I'm more skeptical than that.

Take this whole thing with Roy Moore - the guy gets accused of chasing around and dating 14/15 year old girls when he's in his 30s. There are contemporaneous accounts, his signature is on a young girl's yearbook, multiple accusers stepping forward. Only....he was a Judge or the District Attorney at the time of many of the alleged abuses so people kept quiet, supposedly. Now he's running for the Senate and these women come forward because they don't think he should be a senator. But the statute of limitations has long passed. What do we do then? Should these events, which are no longer prosecutable, but which have some evidence, contemporaneous accounts, and multiple accusers, not influence people's votes in an election? I'd want to know these things if I were a voter.

But how can anyone know the truth either way? What if the women have been paid to say the things by an opponent?

But that's exactly why I mention the contemporaneous accounts. Contemporaneous writings and witnesses are very important, legally, because they get rid of doubt regarding timing. There are people who verified that these things happened - that they were made aware of them contemporaneous to the timing of the events. So, then what? What about the signed yearbook? What about officials who confirmed that he was banned from a mall because he was harassing high school girls there?

I'm not trying to limit your thread to this one individual, because I know it isn't about one individual, but I find this case indicative because its a situation where he is trying to gain a position based on his character....so it's fair, in my mind, to call his character into question when enough evidence is presented. And the fact remains that he can't be tried. It's too late. And he was in a position of power when he could have been tried - a position of power within the court system, no less! I don't think these things are as simple as "a court should decide" or "why wait so long"."

Fair point. I haven't seen the story, I'll look it up.

I know of other instances of people in certain positions abusing their power over the courts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Aled Jones made page 11 of sun today maybe he's not percieved as a big enough scandal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

We had a girl where I work who accused 3 men of sexual harrassment within 2 weeks after they turned her down. If it hadn't been for the fact that one of her victims was openly gay then the boss says he would have had to dismiss us.

Since then one of her victims has been off sick with stress and I have been increasingly uncomfortable around women, including my own family.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

The poor girl Gaia Pope who they've been having the massive search for, who the papers and BBC published names of 3 people they arrested for her murder, now they say no-one was involved in her death.

Tragic incident for the family, but also 3 people now wrongly tarnished through press publicity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *agneto.Man
over a year ago

Bham

No

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Aled Jones made page 11 of sun today maybe he's not percieved as a big enough scandal"

Some papers say he's voluntarily taken himself off work until the investigation has been completed. Which sounds much better than other papers that say the Beeb has suspended him!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

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


"We had a girl where I work who accused 3 men of sexual harrassment within 2 weeks after they turned her down. If it hadn't been for the fact that one of her victims was openly gay then the boss says he would have had to dismiss us.

Since then one of her victims has been off sick with stress and I have been increasingly uncomfortable around women, including my own family."

That's crap. x

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