# Michael Le Vell  from Coronation Street found not guilty on child rape charges



## inferno (Feb 15, 2013)

They are all at it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21468687


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 15, 2013)

He has been charged but not convicted yet. In the UK you are regarded as innocent until proven guilty. Also one more show business person being charged does not mean that "everyone" in the same business is "at it". Having said that, 19 charges does seem to be a lot.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2013)

> *Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been charged with a string of sex offences, including raping a child.*
> 
> Greater Manchester Police said he is also accused of indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child.
> The actor, 48, who plays Kevin Webster in the ITV1 soap, faces a total of 19 charges relating to crimes allegedly committed between 2001 and 2010.
> Mr Le Vell, whose real name is Michael Turner, is due before magistrates in Manchester on 27 February.


 
*Title edited for more detail.


----------



## inferno (Feb 15, 2013)

I think I said charged in the heading Hocus not convicted, but thank you for correcting my informal language


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2013)

I only added his name, just to stop duplicate threads.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 15, 2013)

inferno said:


> I think I said charged in the heading Hocus not convicted, but thank you for correcting my informal language


Go roll your eyes somewhere else. My response was to your "They are all at it" comment which is a presumption of guilt not only by this person but numerous other unnamed people.


----------



## shygirl (Feb 15, 2013)

How could the police/cps have dropped this one, 19 alleged offences, including rape?!!  There obviously was enough evidence, otherwise they wouldn't now be charging him again.  There needs to be an inquiry into why the original decision was made.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 15, 2013)

shygirl said:


> How could the police/cps have dropped this one, 19 alleged offences, including rape?!! There obviously was enough evidence, otherwise they wouldn't now be charging him again. There needs to be an inquiry into why the original decision was made.


I think the original case was dropped because of insufficient evidence. Presumably they now have more evidence (possibly because of publicity with the first case) and there's enough to charge him and there is a realistic chance of a conviction.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

When was the other charged corrie actor arrested? Was it by any chance sept 2011 - the time that turner (his real name) was first arrested?


----------



## shygirl (Feb 15, 2013)

No, its just that a senior cps lawyer has reviewed the evidence.  There's no reference to new evidence having come up.  It's appalling.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 15, 2013)

inferno said:


> I think I said charged in the heading Hocus not convicted, but thank you for correcting my informal language


Your informal language is, potentially, a libel lawyer's wet dream. They don't tend to be quite so free and easy about the terminology. Save your rolleyeses


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Opps, Andrew Lancel hasn't been convicted - my mistake


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 15, 2013)

shygirl said:


> No, its just that a senior cps lawyer has reviewed the evidence. There's no reference to new evidence having come up. It's appalling.


I didn't realise that. I just assumed, what with the current situation of the Savile situation bringing historic abuse cases to the fore, more evidence had been uncovered.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Opps, Andrew Lancel hasn't been convicted - my mistake


Do I need to do any editing? PM me any links.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Do I need to do any editing? PM me any links.


Nah, it's all sorted now.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 15, 2013)

Good


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

shygirl said:


> No, its just that a senior cps lawyer has reviewed the evidence. There's no reference to new evidence having come up. It's appalling.


Interesting, that's exactly how the rotheram child-sex ring finally went to court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> In the UK you are regarded as innocent until proven guilty


only by the courts


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2013)

..


----------



## tombowler (Jul 21, 2013)

Look like the trail is due in September.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 21, 2013)

tombowler said:


> Look like the trail is due in September.


 
I think you mean trial


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2013)

gf ndg fb f


----------



## tombowler (Jul 21, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think you mean trial


 
i did mean trial thanks but what does n-b-e mean?


----------



## purves grundy (Jul 21, 2013)

someone shold strat ths thraed again


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2013)

cant say bro. hence my immediate deletions.


----------



## cdg (Jul 21, 2013)

tombowler said:


> i did mean trial thanks but what does n-b-e mean?


 

National Bank of Egypt?


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2013)

Oh my Lord...


> Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell raped a six-year-old girl while she was holding her teddy bear, a court has heard.
> 
> The star, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster in the ITV soap, placed a second teddy bear over his victim's mouth as he sexually assaulted her, the court heard.
> 
> ...


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh my Lord...


today the defence council will start his assault on the girl.
i wonder if richard desmond will rue his newspapers support for kev


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> today the defence council will start his assault on the girl.
> i wonder if richard desmond will rue his newspapers support for kev


Inferring from the Yahoo article, she's about 18 now? Christ, that's got to be a difficult thing to do, especially at that age. I hope she's OK.


----------



## Smyz (Sep 3, 2013)

17.

She's been allowed to give evidence from behind a curtain.

Brave woman.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2013)

Smyz said:


> 17.
> 
> She's been allowed to give evidence from behind a curtain.
> 
> Brave woman.


Not half! I hope that, if he did it, he is convicted and that she gets every bit of support she needs to be able to live her life as unaffected as possible by what happened, note careful phrasing


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> today the defence council will start his assault on the girl.
> i wonder if richard desmond will rue his newspapers support for kev



Given that his only defence is to attack the memory, background and credibility of the only witness, what other option is there for  the Counsel for the defence?

Le Vell maintains he has been falsely accused of this heinous act. What would _you_ do in his position?

I understand how traumatic an experience this will be for the accuser. But (if he is innocent) it is also desperate for the accused. 

Perhaps there should be blanket reporting restrictions on these cases - at least til after the verdict.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Given that his only defence is to attack the memory, background and credibility of the only witness, what other option is there for  the Counsel for the defence?
> 
> Le Vell maintains he has been falsely accused of this heinous act. What would _you_ do in his position?
> 
> ...


I suppose this is one problem with the adversarial form of justice we have in this country - there really is no way of testing the evidence other than putting witnesses/complainants under stress.

But it seems patently obvious to me that, much as evidence needs testing in these cases just as in any other, putting complainants who have already allegedly been traumatised by the accused through further trauma is neither a fair nor just way of dealing with the issue. It's uncomfortably similar to the way we used to decide if people were witches or not...

And I am still haunted by the story of the violinist from Chetham's school who killed herself after giving evidence at the trial of the music teacher who was, ultimately, convicted [ETA: of many, but not all,  of the offences he was accused of]. It was reported that she had been accused of being a liar and a fantasist, and the suggestion was at least made that this contributed - as I would expect it might - to the emotional state which led to her suicide.

Test the evidence by all means, but not to the destruction of the witness.

And, while I can see how reporting restrictions might reduce some of the trauma, I am not convinced that it's by any means the whole story. Being attacked in court by the defence counsel, and having the very accusations made against you that you have always feared would be - that you wouldn't be believed, that people would think your lying, and all the rest of the abusers' stock in trade of threats - is itself quite enough to push someone who is almost inevitably already going to be in a fragile emotional state right over the edge.

And remember: the CPS is often quite keen that witnesses/complainants are *not* receiving psychological therapy at this stage in proceedings, because there is an abiding fear that this could compromise evidence or at least give the defence an opportunity to allege that witnesses are being coached. So these people are taking the stand utterly on their own.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Test the evidence by all means, but not to the destruction of the witness.



Yes. But Le Vell's brief did not make the rules, he has to work within them.

I agree an investigative system might be better than the current adversarial one, but neither Le Vell or his brief can be blamed for how the system currently works.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Yes. But Le Vell's brief did not make the rules, he has to work within them.
> 
> I agree an investigative system might be better than the current adversarial one, but neither Le Vell or his brief can be blamed for how the system currently works.


I'm not really talking about Le Vell's brief - I'm more interested in the system.

A system which I might find myself in the middle of at some point in the future, with any luck... (contrary as that sounds!) I have a vested interest in witnesses being treated decently


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

funnily enough, I have an upcoming vested interest in _defendants_ being treated fairly... and in _witnesses_ being subject to full scrutiny (albeit in _nothing_ like the circumstances this young woman finds herself in). 

I genuinely hope the truth wins out in this case, whatever it may be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Given that his only defence is to attack the memory, background and credibility of the only witness, what other option is there for  the Counsel for the defence?



His *only* defence?
I hardly think so. Given that Le Vell suppoosedly raped this child over and over again over a decade, surely he  or his counsel could produce evidence refuting even one instance of rape - perhaps proof that Le Vell was busy elsewhere doing promotional work, or on holiday?
If he can't then either his counsel is crap, his memory is fucked, or he has something to hide.



> Le Vell maintains he has been falsely accused of this heinous act. What would _you_ do in his position?



Most men accused of rape maintain that they've been falsely accused, many even after they've been convicted on overwhelming evidence.



> I understand how traumatic an experience this will be for the accuser. But (if he is innocent) it is also desperate for the accused.
> 
> Perhaps there should be blanket reporting restrictions on these cases - at least til after the verdict.



Sometimes you take playing the Devil's advocate from the sublime to the slime.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> His *only* defence?
> I hardly think so. Given that Le Vell suppoosedly raped this child over and over again over a decade, surely he  or his counsel could produce evidence refuting even one instance of rape - perhaps proof that Le Vell was busy elsewhere doing promotional work, or on holiday?
> If he can't then either his counsel is crap, his memory is fucked, or he has something to hide.



Really? They will have asked her for dates? From when she was a little girl? Sorry but that seems daft to me.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most men accused of rape maintain that they've been falsely accused, many even after they've been convicted on overwhelming evidence.



What does what 'most men accused of rape' do mean to him - if he is innocent? What would you do if you were falsely accused of a crime like this? Roll over on the basis that to deny it would be 'what most men do'. That is a bizarre notion.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Really? They will have asked her for dates? From when she was a little girl? Sorry but that seems daft to me.


I don't doubt that they will have tried to pin down some dates - with someone as high-profile as a TV actor, being able to prove that he was or was not around at a particular time would be quite an important piece of evidence.

It doesn't have to be her recollection of a date - it might be enough that she recalled an assault taking place at, say, a birthday party or a family gathering.

These rozzers really are deucedly cunning, you know


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sometimes you take playing the Devil's advocate from the sublime to the slime.



So only people accused of 'nice' crimes are entitled to justice. I'll go with Gareth Pearce on this one I think.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I don't doubt that they will have tried to pin down some dates - with someone as high-profile as a TV actor, being able to prove that he was or was not around at a particular time would be quite an important piece of evidence.
> 
> It doesn't have to be her recollection of a date - it might be enough that she recalled an assault taking place at, say, a birthday party or a family gathering.



Fair enough. But any anomaly between her evidence and documented proof that he was elsewhere surely her credibility. Which is what I said was the only strategy he had...  



LiamO said:


> Given that his only defence is to attack the memory, background and credibility of the only witness, what other option is there for  the Counsel for the defence?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> What does what 'most men accused of rape' do mean to him - if he is innocent? What would you do if you were falsely accused of a crime like this? Roll over on the basis that to deny it would be 'what most men do'. That is a bizarre notion.


I don't think that's what VP's suggesting. It seems pretty obvious to me that he's pointing out that Le Vell's insistence on his innocence doesn't really mean anything either way - plenty of men who turn out to be guilty of rape protest their innocence, too.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I don't think that's what VP's suggesting. It seems pretty obvious to me that he's pointing out that Le Vell's insistence on his innocence doesn't really mean anything either way - plenty of men who turn out to be guilty of rape protest their innocence, too.



Yes. I understand that.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> So only people accused of 'nice' crimes are entitled to justice. I'll go with Gareth Pearce on this one I think.


I think that, if we step back a bit and stop simply setting the interests of the accused against the interests of the complainant, there's a bigger picture: what matters most is that justice is done, not merely that either party gets satisfaction. A conviction of Le Vell is no good if it is false or unsafe, and his acquittal is similarly no good if it is based on faulty justice. In addition, if the price of achieving an outcome is so heavy as to be unbearable for either party, then that's not an ideal state of affairs either.

The points I was making earlier on were general ones about those issues - the fact that it is necessary, under our current system of seeing justice being done, for witnesses (yes, and defendants) to sometimes endure the most awful and unpleasant trauma and stress in the course of a trial. It doesn't make any difference in this case, because it's being tried under the existing rules, but it will be cases like this that prompt (I hope) the thought that we should be looking to find better ways of doing our justice that don't cause such additional trauma.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I think that, if we step back a bit and *stop simply setting the interests of the accused against the interests of the complainant, *



I haven't attempted to do anything of the kind.



existentialist said:


> what matters most is that justice is done, not merely that either party gets satisfaction.



Like I said here you mean


LiamO said:


> I genuinely hope the truth wins out in this case, whatever it may be.






existentialist said:


> The points I was making earlier on were general ones about those issues - the fact that it is necessary, under our current system of seeing justice being done, for witnesses (yes, and defendants) to sometimes endure the most awful and unpleasant trauma and stress in the course of a trial. It doesn't make any difference in this case, because it's being tried under the existing rules, but it will be cases like this that prompt (I hope) the thought that we should be looking to find better ways of doing our justice that don't cause such additional trauma.



I will look forward to that.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 3, 2013)

*Frankie Boyle* ‏@frankieboyle8h
One thing I will say for Coronation Street, it's going to be really difficult for Eastenders to top this


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Really? They will have asked her for dates? From when she was a little girl? Sorry but that seems daft to me.



From when she was a little girl the abuse continued over a decade. 

Looks like you're so busy making sure Le Vell gets a fair crack, that you haven't bothered to read up on this beyond "Corrie twat nicked".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2013)

LiamO said:


> So only people accused of 'nice' crimes are entitled to justice. I'll go with Gareth Pearce on this one I think.



Yes, because that's what I've said, isn't it? "Only people accused of nice crimes are entitled to justice".
Were you born disingenuous, or did you have to take classes?

Of course, we both know that I neither said nor intimated anything of the sort, and that you're trying your usual bullshit deflection techniques in lieu of having anything worthwhile to say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2013)

LiamO said:


> What does what 'most men accused of rape' do mean to him - if he is innocent? What would you do if you were falsely accused of a crime like this? Roll over on the basis that to deny it would be 'what most men do'. That is a bizarre notion.



That "bizarre notion" is purely a product of your own mind, which is doubtless part of why it seems bizarre.
My (very obvious to anyone with an open mind) point was that claims of innocence are exactly that: Claims made by someone accused of a crime, and that in terms of imprisoned/convicted sex offenders, even those with substantive non-circumstantial evidence proving that they committed the crime will still claim innocence.

In other words, claims of innocence have no intrinsic or extrinsic value, with reference to a crime. What has value is the process of justice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Yes. I understand that.



And yet you still posted your whack of bullshit.

It wouldn't be so bad if you were decent at trolling, but frankly you suck goat-knob, that's how cheesy you are.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 4, 2013)

Isn't Bill Roach in court this week too? His case doesn't seem to be getting much coverage.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2013)

Chip Barm said:


> Isn't Bill Roach in court this week too? His case doesn't seem to be getting much coverage.


January - he was only in court for a plea hearing  and few formalities this week.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 4, 2013)

Ah right, cheers.


----------



## Tortihellcat (Sep 4, 2013)

The number of TV stars that are being charged for these offences is pretty shocking, It must be something about the nature of fame that make them think they will never be reported.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

He has been cleared of all charges.



> *Coronation Street's Le Vell cleared of child rape*
> 
> Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been cleared of raping a child.
> 
> ...


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> He has been cleared of all charges.


That's a lot of pain and suffering all round, to no good end [ETA: except, I suppose, that justice has been done and been seen to be done, which is important. Hell of a price to pay, though]

I feel sympathy for all of them.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

existentialist said:


> That's a lot of pain and suffering all round, to no good end [ETA: except, I suppose, that justice has been done and been seen to be done, which is important. Hell of a price to pay, though]
> 
> I feel sympathy for all of them.


Despite the jury finding him not guilty, he'll always be guilty in some people's eyes and some will insist that 'he got away with it' forever.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Despite the jury finding him not guilty, he'll always be guilty in some people's eyes and some will insist that 'he got away with it' forever.


 
Yes, and the victim (or complainant should you wish) will forever be condemned as a liar.  Its shit sandwiches all round.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

<editor: idiotic libellous comment removed. Repeat this and you will be banned>


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Despite the jury finding him not guilty, he'll always be guilty in some people's eyes and some will insist that 'he got away with it' forever.





Teaboy said:


> Yes, and the victim (or complainant should you wish) will forever be condemned as a liar.  Its shit sandwiches all round.


Yeah.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> -


With what? (careful now...)


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2013)

serves him right for cheating on gail so often


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

It seems strange to me that the defence does not have to provide any compelling reasons why someone would lie in this situation, all they have to do is call "liar" and its down to the prosecution to prove otherwise.  Something doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> It seems strange to me that the defence does not have to provide any compelling reasons why someone would lie in this situation, all they have to do is call "liar" and its down to the prosecution to prove otherwise.  Something doesn't sit right with me.


Think of the can of worms that might open up, though.

I mean, if we have an "innocent until proven guilty" system, which does seem to be the best option on offer, why should there be any onus on the defence to do anything other than discredit the prosecution's case (and, indeed, its witnesses) sufficiently to make a conviction not possible?

I know what you're saying, but I just can't see how the system could be different without substantially changing the premise on which our system of justice operates.

All I ever console myself with in these situations is that, if the accused person _was_ up to no good, it is quite possible that other evidence might come to light in the future, and that their crimes will eventually come to light.

On the other hand, if this was, for whatever reason, a fabricated allegation, then the accused has every right to try and put his life back together again (particularly hard if he's in the public eye) and get on with it.

I wouldn't want to be in the position of either of them today.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

Surely the amount of sex offences and sex offenders massively outweighs the handful of people who are prepared to make spurious allegations and then stick with them all the way through the long winded, protracted and daunting legal process?  And for what benefit?

With the few who are prepared to make untrue allegations it shouldn't be too hard for a well paid legal professional to outline a compelling reason why they would lie?

It seems to me that unless we overcome this sticking point the rate of sexual offences being successfully prosecuted will remain dreadfully low.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 10, 2013)

If he's been cleared then he did not rape her. Why will she not now be prosecuted for a false allegation? Could be interesting if she was and was then cleared. Bit like Harwood/Tomlinson...


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

existentialist said:


> With what? (careful now...)


 


discokermit said:


> it.


 
DK's comment reads as libellous to me.

* I'm not quoting the original comment as I would then be republishing it.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If he's been cleared then he did not rape her. Why will she not now be prosecuted for a false allegation?


The court case was to prove his guilt. They prosecution failed to prove that.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 10, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If he's been cleared then he did not rape her. Why will she not now be prosecuted for a false allegation? Could be interesting if she was and was then cleared. Bit like Harwood/Tomlinson...



No the fact he was cleared means the jury did not think that the prosecution had established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For there to be prosecution of false allegations the CPS would have to believe that they have enough evidence to show that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the allegations were false (and that the person making the allegations knew that).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> serves him right for cheating on gail so often


Gail? Surely you mean Shalleh (Sally)?


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Combustible said:


> No the fact he was cleared means the jury did not think that the prosecution had established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For there to be prosecution of false allegations the CPS would have to believe that they have enough evidence to show that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the allegations were false (and that the person making the allegations knew that).


Even if those criteria are met, they rarely actually prosecute on those grounds, and the lack of such a case really doesn't prove anything at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Gail? Surely you mean Shalleh (Sally)?




got me platts and websters confused, shame on me.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> got me platts and websters confused, shame on me.


It's a small street and everyone knows everyone else, so there's bound to be a bit of incest and carrying on, like.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If he's been cleared then he did not rape her. Why will she not now be prosecuted for a false allegation? Could be interesting if she was and was then cleared. Bit like Harwood/Tomlinson...


 
Why should they do that?  Does that happy every time there is a not guilty verdict?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If he's been cleared then he did not rape her. Why will she not now be prosecuted for a false allegation? Could be interesting if she was and was then cleared. Bit like Harwood/Tomlinson...


It's not binary.

She made an allegation. For him to be convicted, it had to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

The fact that it was not does not mean that her allegation was false. And, if she were to be prosecuted for making a malicious allegation, that, too, would have to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Which means there is a great gulf between those two extremes which is the "reasonable doubt" bit.

End of story.

ETA: Oh. Beaten to it by Combustible


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

But anyone posting here insisting that he is in fact and guilty and has 'got away with it' can be expected to be banned and their comments removed.


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2013)

Presumably the very fact that a prosecution was brought suggests that the CPS thought there was a case to answer and (unless something particular and specific has come out) this means there's unlikely to now be a prosecution for making a malicious allegation.

I certainly can't remember a case where anything equivalent has happened, and I imagine it would be considered newsworthy if it did.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> Presumably the very fact that a prosecution was brought suggests that the CPS thought there was a case to answer and (unless something particular and specific has come out) this means there's unlikely to now be a prosecution for making a malicious allegation.
> 
> I certainly can't remember a case where anything equivalent has happened, and I imagine it would be considered newsworthy if it did.


The Jim Davidson matter was dropped by the CPS for "insufficient evidence" - as far as I know, nobody involved in whatever the allegations were is being prosecuted there, either.


----------



## agricola (Sep 10, 2013)

existentialist said:


> The Jim Davidson matter was dropped by the CPS for "insufficient evidence" - as far as I know, nobody involved in whatever the allegations were is being prosecuted there, either.



The CPS have usually authorised charges for making false allegations of rape only where the allegation is demonstrably and obviously false.


----------



## toggle (Sep 10, 2013)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf



As far as I can see (and obviously I haven't read all of that already), there is no mention of anyone making an allegation which led to a prosecution for rape later being charged with making a malicious allegation.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> Presumably the very fact that a prosecution was brought suggests that the CPS thought there was a case to answer and (unless something particular and specific has come out) this means there's unlikely to now be a prosecution for making a malicious allegation.


The CPS thought there was a case to answer when I endured a two day trial at the Old Bailey based on a load of of cobblers that two lying cops had dreamt up.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 10, 2013)

In these sort of cases, one word against another, there is normally at least some extra evidence that the accused may be a paedo, ie child porn found at his home or other victims coming forward when they read in the press that the accused has been arrested. In this case there appeared to be none of that.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> It seems strange to me that the defence does not have to provide any compelling reasons why someone would lie in this situation, all they have to do is call "liar" and its down to the prosecution to prove otherwise.  Something doesn't sit right with me.



The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense. We can't change the standard of proof for certain crimes and leave it the same for others.


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> The CPS thought there was a case to answer when I endured a two day trial at the Old Bailey based on a load of of cobblers that two lying cops had dreamt up.



So did they get prosecuted for making a malicious allegation?


----------



## Quartz (Sep 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> As far as I can see (and obviously I haven't read all of that already), there is no mention of anyone making an allegation which led to a prosecution for rape later being charged with making a malicious allegation.



What happened to that woman who falsely accused the Hamiltons? They had absolute proof that her allegations were false.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> So did they get prosecuted for making a malicious allegation?


Of course they fucking didn't and like most normal people I had about a zillion better things to do than get involved in another case. Legal battles really are no fun, and they can drain the life out of you.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

He did admit to being in bed with her, albeit on top of the sheets after being very drunk and that if he did touch her it 'wasn't in a sexual way' . How did he know the girl, anyone know?


----------



## toggle (Sep 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> As far as I can see (and obviously I haven't read all of that already), there is no mention of anyone making an allegation which led to a prosecution for rape later being charged with making a malicious allegation.



i didn't see anyhting in there either. 

what was clear though is that demonstrably false allegations are exceedingly rare and even where the actual allegation was false, there was often another issue that explained why an allegation had been made. it certainly disprooves the idea that there are a high percentage of allegations being made for obvious issues of revenge or morning after regret that the authorities don't bother to prosecute.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

What is also clear is that he has been found not guilty, so that's what he is. Not guilty.


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Of course they fucking didn't and like most normal people I had about a zillion better things to do than get involved in another case. Legal battles really are no fun, and they can drain the life out of you.



Sorry, maybe my comment was unnecessarily facetious - I knew that would be your answer and I wasn't trying to have a pop at you. 

I'm simply trying to make the point that once a prosecution has been brought on the basis of allegations, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will subsequently be prosecuted for making those allegations maliciously. 

Anyway, this whole line of discussion seems to me to be unhelpful, and to risk giving support to those who would suggest that an unsuccessful rape prosecution must mean that the accuser was lying, so I'm leaving it there.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> Sorry, maybe my comment was unnecessarily facetious - I knew that would be your answer and I wasn't trying to have a pop at you.


No problem!


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

8den said:


> The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense. We can't change the standard of proof for certain crimes and leave it the same for others.


 
I don't see why not, there are already exceptions made for all sorts of defence of the realm rubbish.  I don't believe its beyond our intelligence to design a system which reflects the reality that sex offences and sex offenders are far more prevalent then the tiny amount of people who would make a spurious claim and then see it through realising they have nothing to gain but have everything to lose if they are found to be a liar.

I personally don't see how without addressing this fact we will ever get the disgraceful conviction rate for sexual offences up.


----------



## toggle (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> What is also clear is that he has been found not guilty, so that's what he is. Not guilty.


I'm not intending to make any comment on this case, but on the suggestion that an allegation not proven in court should lead to a prosecution for making a false allegation.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 10, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> How did he know the girl, anyone know?



That's the sort of thing you'd get into trouble for posting.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> Anyway, this whole line of discussion seems to me to be unhelpful, and to risk giving support to those who would suggest that an unsuccessful rape prosecution must mean that the accuser was lying, so I'm leaving it there.


 
Yes well put.  I'm very uneasy with the nature of this discussion since the verdict.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> But anyone posting here insisting that he is in fact and guilty and has 'got away with it' can be expected to be banned and their comments removed.



You might want to address post #62 where dk's post is quoted.


----------



## toggle (Sep 10, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I don't see why not, there are already exceptions made for all sorts of defence of the realm rubbish.  I don't believe its beyond our intelligence to design a system which reflects the reality that sex offences and sex offenders are far more prevalent then the tiny amount of people who would make a spurious claim and then see it through realising they have nothing to gain but have everything to lose if they are found to be a liar.
> 
> I personally don't see how without addressing this fact we will ever get the disgraceful conviction rate for sexual offences up.



I personally feel that the thing that needs to be addressed is the assumption that there are a huge number of false allegations. i knew the number was fairly low, but the actual numbers I saw in that report surprised me.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Chip Barm said:


> You might want to address post #62 where dk's post is quoted.


Cheers, I've done that now. It was such a knowingly stupid thing to say.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> I personally feel that the thing that needs to be addressed is the assumption that there are a huge number of false allegations. i knew the number was fairly low, but the actual numbers I saw in that report surprised me.


 
Will that change the conviction rate?   Sure the assumption is a problem but its hard for me to see how we are going to make any meaningful difference to the conviction rate without overcoming this whole 'one word against another' issue in a court of law.

I go back to my original point, it seems to me it should not be enough for a defence to shout 'liar' without providing some plausible explanation of why. Should it not be the case that in some cases the testimony of a victim should be perceived to carry greater weight?


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Will that change the conviction rate?   Sure the assumption is a problem but its hard for me to see how we are going to make any meaningful difference to the conviction rate without overcoming this whole 'one word against another' issue in a court of law.
> 
> I go back to my original point, it seems to me it should not be enough for a defence to shout 'liar' without providing some plausible explanation of why. Should it not be the case that in some cases the testimony of a victim should be perceived to carry greater weight?


Pretty sure the jury would have weighed up all these questions and points very, very carefully indeed and not made their decision lightly. 

The very fact that this discussion is going on in this particular thread makes me a feel a little uneasy, to be honest.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I don't see why not, there are already exceptions made for all sorts of defence of the realm rubbish.  I don't believe its beyond our intelligence to design a system which reflects the reality that sex offences and sex offenders are far more prevalent then the tiny amount of people who would make a spurious claim and then see it through realising they have nothing to gain but have everything to lose if they are found to be a liar.
> 
> I personally don't see how without addressing this fact we will ever get the disgraceful conviction rate for sexual offences up.



[ETA: disclaimer: I don't believe that anything in the post could be construed as referring to the Le Vell case, but just in the interest of clarity, what I am saying has nothing to do with that case, but with the question of prosecuting historical allegations of abuse in general. Hope this helps]

"trying to get conviction rates up" is a very, very dangerous road to go down, though. That way lies false convictions, and the risk of discrediting the entire process.

We *have* to have a justice system which is, so far as possible, beyond reproach - if you change the burden of proof, you may well end up convicting a lot of offenders who get away with it at the moment, but you also risk convicting innocent people too, and when that starts happening, the system falls into disrepute very quickly.

What you are asking for, in essence, is to take it on trust that when someone makes an allegation, provided that allegation can be tested to ensure that it is not blatantly false, then that should be all that is necessary to convict.

Quite apart from the risk of malicious allegation - because, sure as eggs is eggs, the minute you instigate a system like that, people with all kinds of axes to grind will come out of the woodwork to use it to settle scores - you also have the problems of mistaken identity, misinterpretation of what happened (OK, perhaps that wouldn't have been an issue in this case, but where do you draw the line?), intent, and all of the kind of "false memory"/"tainted witness" stuff that is always lurking in the shadows.

There are huge problems with historical allegations of abuse against children: first, the offences took place far enough in the past that there will be no forensic evidence; two, children don't always make reliable witnesses; three, there are usually no other witnesses; four, recollections may be partial due to trauma or the passage of time; five, as we go through life trying to get on with things, we may well shade, forget, or change our recollections in such a way as to make reciting them in court as evidence a very shaky proposition.

We may end up having to accept that a lot of extremely nasty stuff was done to children which we may never succeed in successfully prosecuting: few cases will come to court, and of those that do, few may result in conviction. There is probably nothing we can do about that, *except* to make sure that, where similar offences are being committed today - and trust me, they will be being committed today - we are putting everything in place to ensure that victims can disclose, that their disclosures will be taken seriously, that evidence will be gathered promptly and professionally in such a way as to ensure that it is as fresh and untainted as possible, and that prosecutions will be conducted sensitively, skilfully and carefully so as to make sure that the best chance of securing a conviction is available, and that safe convictions are achieved.

That, in its own right, is a massively big ask, but it's tiny in comparison to dredging up old cases. We must still do that, as well, because - as we have seen - it is quite possible to secure apparently quite safe convictions in some of those cases, and it is important to send a message to those who were abused, and those doing the abuse, that the mere passage of time is no forgiver of past crimes.

The answer isn't to change the system: it's to use the system more effectively. No justice can be done until a crime is reported, and that still, today as much as 30 or 40 years ago, represents the biggest challenge, whether it's sexual abuse of children, or rape of women or men, and when the crime is reported, it has to be prosecuted properly.

We still have a long way to go.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Pretty sure the jury would have weighed up all these questions and points very, very carefully indeed and not made their decision lightly.


 
I would hope any jury certainly would, but they can only come to a verdict within the current law framework.  My argument is that the framework for sexual offences could be changed just as it has been for other crimes.



> The very fact that this discussion is going on in this particular thread makes me a feel a little uneasy, to be honest.


 
I understand that but I have been very careful to keep it general and it is about a point of law and conviction rates not this case.  As it happens I'm also uneasy about the other conversation that is going on.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

Chip Barm said:


> That's the sort of thing you'd get into trouble for posting.



Ah, ok. One of those 'unknown knowns' ;-)


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Cheers, I've done that now. It was such a knowingly stupid thing to say.


Ah, sorry, editor - I forgot I'd quoted him. I thought it was probably vague enough not to be actionable, but then I'm not the one the lawyers are going to write to...


----------



## toggle (Sep 10, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Will that change the conviction rate?   Sure the assumption is a problem but its hard for me to see how we are going to make any meaningful difference to the conviction rate without overcoming this whole 'one word against another' issue in a court of law.
> 
> I go back to my original point, it seems to me it should not be enough for a defence to shout 'liar' without providing some plausible explanation of why. Should it not be the case that in some cases the testimony of a victim should be perceived to carry greater weight?



but in a society that believes in rampant female abuse of the justice system through false allegations, they don't need to prove anything. just saying that women lie is enough to create questions. doing any more than necessary might backfire.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> I don't see why not, there are already exceptions made for all sorts of defence of the realm rubbish.



You're claiming we change the concept of burden of proof, and citing a piece of legislation that was only relevant during the 1st world war?

You're suggesting that we change the burden of proof so the defense has to prove that the accuser is lying, correct?

Frankly I find that in rape and child abuse cases the defense already spend much of their time attacking the motive, state of mind, how inebriated the victim was etc, now you're essentially saying "we should make that the center piece of the defense". 

In this instance the defense would end up cross examining a 17 year old girl to prove she is lying? Because hey rape trials aren't traumatic enough for the victim?



> I don't believe its beyond our intelligence to design a system which reflects the reality that sex offences and sex offenders are far more prevalent then the tiny amount of people who would make a spurious claim and then see it through realising they have nothing to gain but have everything to lose if they are found to be a liar.



I don't think you understand how our jury system works. It's entirely possible for a jury to believe that the victim was raped, but at the same time acquit the defendant. It's not just a matter of the jury suspecting that the accused committed rape and therefore finding him guilty, the jury must be completely convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, if they are not they are obliged to acquit. 

This is why every rape trial than ends in a not guilty verdict does not immediately follow with the accuser being arrested and charged with perjury. For the case to go to trial the CPS must believe the victim, and a not guilty verdict does not mean the accuser completely fabricated their story, merely that the crown was not capable of convincing a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. 



> I personally don't see how without addressing this fact we will ever get the disgraceful conviction rate for sexual offences up.



There are lots of ways we can improve conviction rates without throwing out one of the corner stones of the entire legal system, for starts education of the general public and more importantly the legal system as to the realities of rape, it's less than a month since the sodding prosecution (the fucking prosecution) in one trial stated that the victim, a 14 year old girl, was a sexual predator who led her attacker on.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 10, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> He did admit to being in bed with her, albeit on top of the sheets after being very drunk and that if he did touch her it 'wasn't in a sexual way' . How did he know the girl, anyone know?


wow is that so? i havent followed this story -  Where was the girl sleeping? In her room? Why was he at the property? Any more info?
I've tried to look online to find out more but cant find anything more - that line of questioning wasnt really reported fully in the links i found


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

ska invita said:


> wow is that so? i havent followed this story -  Where was the girl sleeping? In her room? Why was he at the property? Any more info?


I'm not sure what benefit this line of questioning will yield. 

The people who did hear the full facts of the matter were the eight women and four men of the jury who rather swiftly declared Le Vell innocent of all the charges laid before him.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 10, 2013)

existentialist said:


> "trying to get conviction rates up" is a very, very dangerous road to go down, though. That way lies false convictions, and the risk of discrediting the entire process.



Can I please double like this post?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 10, 2013)

And two people have been nicked for allegedly outing the girl on twitter. We have very strict rules about protecting the identity of minors and unless the courts or her family identify her it's well iffe to start guessing imo


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Dan U said:


> And two people have been nicked for allegedly outing the girl on twitter. We have very strict rules about protecting the identity of minors and unless the courts or her family identify her it's well iffe to start guessing imo


Was this one of those things that couldn't be reported until after the trial?


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> DK's comment reads as libellous to me.
> 
> * I'm not quoting the original comment as I would then be republishing it.


no it wasn't.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 10, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Was this one of those things that couldn't be reported until after the trial?



At least one incident was reported before the verdict.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hild-sex-abuse-victim-identified-Twitter.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hild-sex-abuse-victim-identified-Twitter.html


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no it wasn't.









Oh yes it was.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

was it fuck.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> was it fuck.


Yes it was fuck.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

yeh, yeh. wave your stick about.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 10, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Was this one of those things that couldn't be reported until after the trial?



The twitter thing was reported while the trial went on


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no it wasn't.


 
Well, as I'm not a insanely well-paid libel lawyer standing up in the High Court I'm not going to enter into a protracted debate about this, but you are entitled to your opinion, and in mine you are wrong.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

smiley.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2013)

Whatever about his guilt or innocence. Le Vell described himself as a alcoholic during his trial. His own defense called him a "weak pathetic drunk". So posing for this photo







after his acquittal marks Le Vell as a total cunt.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> smiley.


 
Like I said, I'm not a libel lawyer, and it is of course up to you to test out whether my view is correct by publishing your comments somewhere else to see what happens.  I think we should leave it at that.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

8den said:


> Whatever about his guilt or innocence. Le Vell described himself as a alcoholic during his trial. His own defense called him a "weak pathetic drunk". So posing for this photo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Why?  Irrespective of whether a defendant has any issues with alcohol, having a drink after being on trial for such serious offences sounds perfectly reasonable to me - normal even. 

I'd be necking a bottle of gin on the court steps if it were me.


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

Not surprising that this was the outcome really, is it?  Don't most reported rapes end with no conviction?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2013)

Do you think he's guilty then dk?


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 10, 2013)

I'm finding it really hard to comment on this thread without saying something awkward.

I think it's probably worth remembering though that children don't usually make this sort of thing up. Reporting has seemed one sided. I think someone said earlier in the thread that there should've been a reporting ban, I kind of agree with that.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think he's guilty then dk?


i didn't say that.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 10, 2013)

8den said:


> Whatever about his guilt or innocence. Le Vell described himself as a alcoholic during his trial. His own defense called him a "weak pathetic drunk". So posing for this photo
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeah considering by his own admission he ended up in bed with the young girl in question, with the defense "i was pissed", nice to know he's back on the drink asap.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

ska invita said:


> wow is that so? i havent followed this story -  Where was the girl sleeping? In her room? Why was he at the property? Any more info?
> I've tried to look online to find out more but cant find anything more - that line of questioning wasnt really reported fully in the links i found



From the Guardian



> The Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has acknowledged that he once got into a bed in which his alleged victim was sleeping.
> 
> But he insisted he had done so after becoming disoriented through drink. "It was innocent," he told the officer who arrested him at his home in Hale, Cheshire, on 30 September 2011, Manchester crown court heard on Thursday.
> 
> ...



http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/05/michael-le-vell-coronation-street

The Manchester Evening News reported previously that the then alleged abuse/rape happened at various addresses in the Manchester area.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Don't most reported rapes end with no conviction?


No.


> *Rape conviction rate at an all-time high*
> CPS statistics reveal conviction rate is currently at 63% as prosecutors respond to claims too few cases appear in court
> 
> Conviction rates for rape and domestic violence cases have risen to an all time high, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) has revealed, amid criticism that too few cases are being brought to court.
> ...


----------



## killer b (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Not surprising that this was the outcome really, is it?  Don't most reported rapes end with no conviction?


they do, although i believe the ratio is much better in cases that make it to court.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i didn't say that.


You implied it.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> You implied it.


i didn't even do that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i didn't even do that.


What did you do then?


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> What did you do then?


quoted word for word part of a post made by editor.


----------



## toggle (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> No.



 your link discusses the number of convictions out of the cases that make it to court. most reports don't get as far as court.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> quoted word for word part of a post made by editor.


Why did you only quote part of his post?


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Why?  Irrespective of whether a defendant has any issues with alcohol, having a drink after being on trial for such serious offences sounds perfectly reasonable to me - normal even.
> 
> I'd be necking a bottle of gin on the court steps if it were me.



As others have mentioned if part of your defense is "I have a alcohol problem", and at the time of the alledged rape claiming that you were pissed as a explanation as to how you ended up in bed with a little girl,  posing for a pint with a thumbs up is fucking out of order.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> quoted word for word part of a post made by editor.


 
But you removed the quotes, which transformed it into a statement of fact.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

8den said:


> As others have mentioned if part of your defense is "I have a alcohol problem", and at the time of the alledged rape claiming that you were pissed as a explanation as to how you ended up in bed with a little girl,  posing for a pint with a thumbs up is fucking out of order.


 
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why did you only quote part of his post?


what's it got to do with you?
i've been threatened with a banning. i obviously can't say what i want about it, so why not shut the fuck up about it.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> quoted word for word part of a post made by editor.


Stop acting like a fucking dick, please. The meaning of your post was clear and for that reason it was rightfully removed.


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 10, 2013)

8den said:


> So posing for this photo
> 
> 
> 
> after his acquittal marks Le Vell as a total cunt.


Utter bollocks. He might be a cunt but not because he has a drink.

eta: Actually you're probably right.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.



I don't think he never needs to drink again, but the man admits he has a alcohol problem and used that as part of his defense. Whether he goes for a drink or not is his own business, posing for a photo in the national press with a half drunk pint in hand is fucking wrong.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Stop acting like a fucking dick, please. The meaning of your post was clear and for that reason it was rightfully removed.


you quite obviously didn't understand the meaning of it at all.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

8den said:


> I don't think he never needs to drink again, but the man admits he has a alcohol problem and used that as part of his defense. Whether he goes for a drink or not is his own business, posing for a photo in the national press with a half drunk pint in hand is fucking wrong.


Given that the court has decided that he was totally innocent of all the extremely serious charges brought before him, I'd say he has every right to enjoy a drink.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> what's it got to do with you?
> i've been threatened with a banning. i obviously can't say what i want about it, so why not shut the fuck up about it.


I'm just asking you about what you posted, what's your problem with that?. Why did you only quote part of it?


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm just asking you about what you posted, what's your problem with that?.


because i've been warned.


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Given that the court has decided that he was totally innocent of all the extremely serious charges brought before him, I'd say he has every right to enjoy a drink.


Did the court decide he was totally innocent? 

There was a not guilty verdict.  It's very hard to make a case based on the word of one person against the other, with no physical evidence.  Not convicting someone is not the same as proving their innocence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Did the court decide he was totally innocent?
> 
> There was a not guilty verdict.  It's very hard to make a case based on the word of one person against the other, with no physical evidence.  Not convicting someone is not the same as proving their innocence.


yeh this vile man can never clear his name


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Did the court decide he was totally innocent?
> 
> There was a not guilty verdict.  It's very hard to make a case based on the word of one person against the other, with no physical evidence.  Not convicting someone is not the same as proving their innocence.


You very much sound like you've already made your mind up here, and that seems to be a bit of strange position to be in when you're saying you're after the truth.


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> You very much sound like you've already made your mind up here, and that seems to be a bit of strange position to be in when you're saying you're after the truth.


Where did I say I was after the truth?  I have no idea whether he raped her or not, and a not guilty verdict hasn't made it any clearer.  Only Le Vell and the girl know if he did or not.


----------



## Shirl (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Where did I say I was after the truth?  I have no idea whether he raped her or not, and a not guilty verdict hasn't made it any clearer.  Only Le Vell and the girl know if he did or not.


Would a guilty verdict have made it clearer?


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

Shirl said:


> Would a guilty verdict have made it clearer?


Yes, a lot clearer.


----------



## Shirl (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Yes, a lot clearer.


how come?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

Shirl said:


> Would a guilty verdict have made it clearer?


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 10, 2013)

It sounds to me like there's every chance he will be able to rebuild his career.

The accuser who believes she was abused has suffered a massive setback in court today such that you have to wonder whether the original decision by CPS was the right one. The evidence presented didn't ever seem to be enough to suggest a conviction 'beyond reasonable doubt' was possible.


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

Shirl said:


> how come?


To get a guilty verdict, the prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he raped that child.

To get not guilty, the defence didn't have to prove, beyond doubt, that he was innocent.  If the jury thinks, based on the word of the girl against Le Vell, that possibly/probably he did do it - that is still not enough for guilty.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

Some guilty people get off, some innocent people get sent down. Jury's aren't a particularly good way (imo) of getting the right decision and maybe in the future we will laugh at the idea of assembling a group of people to make important decisions on such matters. But until we find a better way its the best way we have and he's been found not guilty, so in the eyes of the law he is just that.


----------



## Shirl (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> To get a guilty verdict, the prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he raped that child.
> 
> To get not guilty, the defence didn't have to prove, beyond doubt, that he was innocent.  If the jury thinks, based on the word of the girl against Le Vell, that possibly/probably he did do it - that is still not enough for guilty.


Sorry, yes I get all that. I think I'm just feeling grumpy. I'll shut up.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Given that the court has decided that he was totally innocent of all the extremely serious charges brought before him, I'd say he has every right to enjoy a drink.



Well again yes, but lets be clear you've made some seriously wrong life choices to end up in the dock trying to explain that the completely innocent reason you were in bed with a 8 year old girl was that you were pissed.

A degree of not contrition per say, rather that it would be tactful that if you're going to enjoy a drink to celebrate your freedom, at least don't pose for a pappazarri with a half drunk pint, go have a drink with some friends in private.


All I'm saying in the end of the day he's perfectly entitled to do what he wants, but posing for that photo makes him look like a cunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Did the court decide he was totally innocent?
> 
> There was a not guilty verdict.



You've answered your own question here.



> Not convicting someone is not the same as proving their innocence.



A not guilty verdict confers the_ absolute_ presumption of innocence in English law. 

Nobody ever has to prove their innocence in a British court, and quite rightly so.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2013)

He's still a cunt though


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

No one has to prove their innocence and he hasn't.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> No one has to prove their innocence and he hasn't.



So your point is that he _might_ still be guilty.

Do you feel the same about other not guilty verdicts?

Unfortunately there are others like you; the "no smoke without fire" brigade. It's a destructive attitude which undermines a basic principle of justice.


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

Of course someone found not guilty might still be guilty, I have no idea.  Rape cases are really difficult to prove, especially if it comes down to one person's word against another.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

Sometimes the jury's decision coincides with the unvarnished truth, sometimes it doesn't. How could it not be any other way?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Of course someone found not guilty might still be guilty, I have no idea.  Rape cases are really difficult to prove, especially if it comes down to one person's word against another.



So you think it's ok to question the innocence of those _acquitted_ of rape?


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> So you think it's ok to question the innocence of those _acquitted_ of rape?


There's lots of people I'd question the innocence of - there's been some high profile murder cases that seem unlikely to me.  Why shouldn't I question a court verdict?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> Why shouldn't I question a court verdict?



Because you've not seen and heard all the evidence, perhaps?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> So you think it's ok to question the innocence of those _acquitted_ of rape?



How about murder?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Because you've not seen and heard all the evidence, perhaps?



It's safe to say some people accused of rape get to walk out of court. "Not guilty" in the eyes of the justice system isn't always the same as not having committed the crime with which they were charged. This is obvious, no?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> How about murder?



Well in his case there's been a shitload of _post_ trial evidence. Nobody is saying that juries don't get it wrong, just that the automatic assumption that they _may_ have is a dangerous one.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> There's lots of people I'd question the innocence of - there's been some high profile murder cases that seem unlikely to me.  Why shouldn't I question a court verdict?


 
Of course people can and do question such things, but it is definitely unwise to do so in writing, on an open internet forum, and linked to a specific named individual.  Unless you look forward to a possible 'invite' to the High Court. It has happened very recently in another matter remember, with a number of very expensive libel writs being served. It pays, literally, to be very circumspect about what views you publish for all the world to see.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> It's safe to say some people accused of rape get to walk out of court. "Not guilty" in the eyes of the justice system isn't always the same as not having committed the crime with which they were charged. This is obvious, no?



Of course.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

I don't think Thora was commenting on this case, just musing in general terms.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well in his case there's been a shitload of _post_ trial evidence. Nobody is saying that juries don't get it wrong, just that the automatic assumption that they _may_ have is a dangerous one.



Well id say the trial was good enough reason, but you pay good defence lawyers and they can seed enough doubt to get people off.

"Might be wrong", "Might be right". We're not omnipresent, so it's a fairly safe line of general guidance


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> I don't think Thora was commenting on this case, just musing in general terms.


 
She was earlier in the thread, talking about this particular case.


----------



## Espresso (Sep 10, 2013)

The idea that you're innocent because you've not been proven guilty in a court of law is somewhat of a poisoned chalice for telly types.
John Leslie was a big fat cheese in the world of light entertainment until he was named as the rapist of Ulrika Jonnsen by Steve Wright.
Mr Leslie hasn't exactly been inundated with offers from the light entertainment bosses who paid him gazillions to be the host with the most on telly programmes _before_ Steve Wright opened that particular can of worms. And Leslie never even stood trial for a crime. 
Mud sticks.
OR 
No smoke without fire.
It's a matter of what you already think, I suppose.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2013)

wealthy, famous middle aged white man is acquitted of rape.

theres a suprise.


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> She was earlier in the thread, talking about this particular case.


My point about Le Vell is that he hasn't been "proved innocent".  A not guilty verdict doesn't require proof of innocence.

Only two people can truly know what happened.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 10, 2013)

I'm more than a little interested in the 'life-coach' whose seminar brought the whole thing to the surface for the girl.  The allegation that Le Vell said to the girl that he was going to rid her of 'evil' rings alarming bells.  I don't know the person involved (Ali Campbell) nor the style of the seminar but NLP can be a powerful, coercive technique in the wrong hands.

It was from America (I think Ali Campbell hails from LA) that the late-80s ritual abuse hysteria came, as well as the scandalous belief in 'recovered memories'.  And, just in case anyone thinks that children always tell the truth, do a bit of research on this period of history and you will see how many people were falsely accused of child abuse, jailed and (in some cases, I believe) still may be in jail.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Sep 10, 2013)

Matthew Wright. It was Matthew Wright.







Love the post.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

Espresso said:


> The idea that you're innocent because you've not been proven guilty in a court of law is somewhat of a poisoned chalice for telly types.
> John Leslie was a big fat cheese in the world of light entertainment *until he was named as the rapist* of Ulrika Jonnsen by Steve Wright.
> Mr Leslie hasn't exactly been inundated with offers from the light entertainment bosses who paid him gazillions to be the host with the most on telly programmes _before_ Steve Wright opened that particular can of worms. And Leslie never even stood trial for a crime.
> Mud sticks.
> ...


 
* alleged * - I don't think there was ever a trial about this, as far as I can tell.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:


> <snip>


 
Perhaps.  But you (and others) have been, in my opinion, skating on very thin ice with some comments in this thread, which is why myself and others have challenged you.

Like I said before, you have to be very, very careful about suggesting or implying that someone is guilty of an offence that they haven't been convicted of, and certainly when they have been found not guilty, as we are all responsible for the potential legal consequences of anything we post here or elsewhere. But the choice is yours of course.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Nigel Evans being charged with 8 sex offences including one of rape.


----------



## pissflaps (Sep 10, 2013)

ok now i'm just confused.


----------



## Espresso (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> * alleged * - I don't think there was ever a trial about this, as far as I can tell.



That's what I said - he never stood trial.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

Espresso said:


> That's what I said - he never stood trial.


 
Yes, but you stated that he was "named as the rapist", when there was no trial so it was, and remains, just an allegation, and so should be phrased as such. 

I'm bowing out of this thread now.


----------



## Athos (Sep 10, 2013)

Aside from the legal 'thin ice'of implying that he's guilty, I really don't understand the  evidential basis for it. 

There was no medical evidence, no forensic evidence, and no witness evidence of the alleged offences.  Not even any circumstantial evidence - other victims or child porn on his computer, for example. And no history of offending, or even rumours regarding this man.

The only evidence was the testimony of the alleged victim, which, as I understand it was inconsistent, and was drip fed - she gave her first account to the police, and offered more material after the CPS' s initial decision not to prosecute. Furthermore there are questions raised by the fact that her complaint seems to have been precipitated by the  involvement of a 'practitioner'of a discredited pseudoscience. 

Her uncorroborated evidence is a very flimsy basis for what's being implied by some.


----------



## Espresso (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Yes, but you stated that he was "named as the rapist", when there was no trial so it was, and remains, just an allegation, and so should be phrased as such.



By Steve - or indeed and mea culpa - Matthew ( King Biscuit Time and Mr S.)  - Wright. 
But yes indeedy, you are right. It was an allegation and there was no trial. But it completely and utterly sank and scuppered John Leslie's career. 

Which was the whole and entire point I made in the first place.


----------



## Thora (Sep 10, 2013)

Athos said:


> Aside from the legal 'thin ice'of implying that he's guilty, I really don't understand the  evidential basis for it.
> 
> There was no medical evidence, no forensic evidence, and no witness evidence of the alleged offences.  Not even any circumstantial evidence - other victims or child porn on his computer, for example. And no history of offending, or even rumours regarding this man.
> 
> ...


These things aren't easy to prove though, are they?  If, for example, a child accuses a parent of abusing them some years earlier, would you expect to find medical evidence, eye witnesses etc?  The testimony (sometimes inconsistent) of the alleged victim is all there is.


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Given that the court has decided that he was totally innocent of all the extremely serious charges brought before him, I'd say he has every right to enjoy a drink.



Why are you being such a rape apologist?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> Why are you being such a rape apologist?



WTF? 

You utter fucking dick.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> Why are you being such a rape apologist?


Sorry, can you run that past me again, just to make sure I'm getting it right? Exactly what 'rape' am I 'apologising' for?


----------



## Athos (Sep 10, 2013)

Thora said:
			
		

> These things aren't easy to prove though, are they?  If, for example, a child accuses a parent of abusing them some years earlier, would you expect to find medical evidence, eye witnesses etc?  The testimony (sometimes inconsistent) of the alleged victim is all there is.



Quite often there'll be medical evidence e.g. doctor's notes of bleeding, or evidence from friends of contemporaneous complaints of abuse, or child porn on the accused's computer, or similar complaints from siblings. It's unusual for there to be no evidence -  corobative or circumstantial - other than an alleged victim's account.  And when it's inconsistent and has been promoted by something like NLP, how much probative value can you attach to it?

Don't get me wrong, it must be very hard to secure a conviction in a case of historic abuse, and I'm sure that loads of rapists get off. But I just can't see any reason to think that's happened in this case.


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Sorry, can you run that past me again, just to make sure I'm getting it right? Exactly what 'rape' am I 'apologising' for?



I'm just a bit baffled as to why you would state a court deciding someone as being "totally innocent". That's not exactly how our justice system works.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> I'm just a bit baffled as to why you would state a court deciding someone as being "totally innocent". That's not exactly how our justice system works.


No, that still doesn't add up to me supposedly being a "rape apologist" so you're going to have to try again, because you've just made a very, _very _seriously defamatory accusation.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 10, 2013)

<edited coz I more or less said exactly the same as editor so my post was redundant>


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 10, 2013)

existentialist said:


> We *have* to have a justice system which is, so far as possible, beyond reproach


Sorry are you living in a parallel world, the justice system is already a (horrible) joke (see Bettinson, Tomlinson etc, etc). I don't see why having a different burden of proof for some crimes would cause people to lose faith in the system (not when many don't have faith in the system anyway). 

(That's not to say that there should be a different burden of proof for sexual abuse cases just that the idea that the idea should be ruled because it would bring the system into reproach is a nonsense).


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> No, that still doesn't add up to me supposedly being a "rape apologist" so you're going to have to try again, because you've just made a very, _very _serious defamatory accusation.



You said "totally innocent". We live in a violent patriarchal society and a rape culture. The criminal justice system continually lets down victims of rape. I think it is a very, very dangerous thing to state that someone who is cleared in court is "totally innocent". I am not saying he did it. I am not saying he didn't do it. I am just saying that we can't now say he is "totally innocent". Courts do not exist in a vacuum. Juries do not exist in a vacuum. They are both shaped by the misogyny and patriarchal structures of the society in which we live. You are making it sound very clear cut when it really isn't.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> You said "totally innocent". We live in a violent patriarchal society and a rape culture. The criminal justice system continually lets down victims of rape. I think it is a very, very dangerous thing to state that someone who is cleared in court is "totally innocent". I am not saying he did it. I am not saying he didn't do it. I am just saying that we can't now say he is "totally innocent". Courts do not exist in a vacuum. Juries do not exist in a vacuum. They are both shaped by the misogyny and patriarchal structures of the society in which we live. You are making it sound very clear cut when it really isn't.



You called him a rape apologist though. Out of line.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> You said "totally innocent". We live in a violent patriarchal society and a rape culture. The criminal justice system continually lets down victims of rape. I think it is a very, very dangerous thing to state that someone who is cleared in court is "totally innocent". I am not saying he did it. I am not saying he didn't do it. I am just saying that we can't now say he is "totally innocent". Courts do not exist in a vacuum. Juries do not exist in a vacuum. They are both shaped by the misogyny and patriarchal structures of the society in which we live. You are making it sound very clear cut when it really isn't.


That still doesn't make me a 'rape apologist' by any fucking stretch of the imagination so you've got one last chance to withdraw that disgusting comment.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> You said "totally innocent". We live in a violent patriarchal society and a rape culture. The criminal justice system continually lets down victims of rape. I think it is a very, very dangerous thing to state that someone who is cleared in court is "totally innocent". I am not saying he did it. I am not saying he didn't do it. I am just saying that we can't now say he is "totally innocent". Courts do not exist in a vacuum. Juries do not exist in a vacuum. They are both shaped by the misogyny and patriarchal structures of the society in which we live. You are making it sound very clear cut when it really isn't.



In the eyes of the law, Le Vell *is* totally innocent.

But that aside, why is editor a "rape apologist"?


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> In the eyes of the law, Le Vell *is* totally innocent.
> 
> But that aside, why is editor a "rape apologist"?



In the eyes of the law he is "not guilty".


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> In the eyes of the law he is "not guilty".



Innocent in other words.

Christ, I've never noticed what a nob you are til now.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> In the eyes of the law he is "not guilty".



 Once again, in British law a not guilty verdict implies the presumption of total innocence. Idiot.

Now, "rape apologist", want to deal with that one?


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> In the eyes of the law he is "not guilty".


In the eyes of the law people are *presumed innocent* unless convicted. Now I'd like you to explain what 'rape' am I supposedly 'apologising' for.


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> That still doesn't make me a 'rape apologist' by any fucking stretch of the imagination so you've got one last chance to withdraw that disgusting comment.



To say "totally innocent" is to to side with rape culture. It is to take a passively complicit role. It is to ignore to complexities of these situations.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> In the eyes of the law he is "not guilty".


In the eyes of the law, you're innocent until proven guilty. So that = innocent.


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Once again, in British law a not guilty verdict implies the presumption of total innocence.



Really, no. It isn't. They are very different concepts.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> To say "totally innocent" is to to side with rape culture. It is to take a passively complicit role. It is to ignore to complexities of these situations.


So everyone who is accused of rape is guilty?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> To say "totally innocent" is to to side with rape culture. It is to take a passively complicit role. It is to ignore to complexities of these situations.



So in order not to side with rape culture, the only appropriate response is "no smoke without fire"?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> Why are you being such a rape apologist?


So...editor points out that the court has acquitted him of an offence, and you claim that this makes editor a "rape apologist"?

If I was editor, I think I would be seriously pissed off, because you have, in effect, implied that he is excusing rape simply by pointing out the (obvious) fact that Le Vell was acquitted.

Which is getting interestingly close to actionable, I'd have thought.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> To say "totally innocent" is to to side with rape culture. It is to take a passively complicit role. It is to ignore to complexities of these situations.


So you're not going to withdraw that comment then?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> I'm just a bit baffled as to why you would state a court deciding someone as being "totally innocent". That's not exactly how our justice system works.


*sigh* The effect of the court's decision is that he must be regarded as being "totally innocent". Is that really so hard to understand? You don't work in the media, do you?


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> So in order not to side with rape culture, the only appropriate response is "no smoke without fire"?



Are juries neutral? Are they free of the prejudices of our society? I don't see why it is so controversial to think we should be careful with throwing around phrases like "totally innocent".


----------



## Garek (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> So you're not going to withdraw that comment then?



What you going to do? Ban me? Maybe you should be a bit more self-reflective rather than just knee jerk authoritarian.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry are you living in a parallel world, the justice system is already a (horrible) joke (see Bettinson, Tomlinson etc, etc). I don't see why having a different burden of proof for some crimes would cause people to lose faith in the system (not when many don't have faith in the system anyway).
> 
> (That's not to say that there should be a different burden of proof for sexual abuse cases just that the idea that the idea should be ruled because it would bring the system into reproach is a nonsense).


I know the justice system is not perfect. All the more reason not to compromise it even more.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> To say "totally innocent" is to to side with rape culture. It is to take a passively complicit role. It is to ignore to complexities of these situations.


Jesus


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> So you think it's ok to question the innocence of those _acquitted_ of rape?




Given that only a very small percentage of rape cases even get to court and IIRC the majority end out in not guilty cases I'd say it is ok to question not only the acquitted but the entire system that even allows this sorry fucking state of affairs.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> Really, no. It isn't. They are very different concepts.




You're a fucking idiot and you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> Are juries neutral? Are they free of the prejudices of our society? I don't see why it is so controversial to think we should be careful with throwing around phrases like "totally innocent".


As neutral as we're likely to get. It sounds like you'd only be satisfied with a lynch mob.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> Are juries neutral? Are they free of the prejudices of our society? I don't see why it is so controversial to think we should be careful with throwing around phrases like "totally innocent".



Yeah, and his eyes are too close together.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> What you going to do? Ban me? Maybe you should be a bit more self-reflective rather than just knee jerk authoritarian.


You have posted up a a seriously defamatory claim about an identifiable individual, and tried to justify it with a load of schoolboy gibberish.  

So yes, you can fuck right off for a week and if you dare repeat the same claims ever again it'll be permanent.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> What you going to do? Ban me? Maybe you should be a bit more self-reflective rather than just knee jerk authoritarian.



You just called him a RAPE APOLOGIST, ffs!


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> Are juries neutral? Are they free of the prejudices of our society? I don't see why it is so controversial to think we should be careful with throwing around phrases like "totally innocent".


IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

Due process has been applied, and the way due process works in this country is that someone is innocent *until they have been proven guilty*, regardless of the broader sociopolitical issues.

Le Vell was not convicted. He is therefore, in the eyes of the law, and regardless of our private views on the matter, *completely innocent*.

And anyone who dares to say publicly to the contrary is laying themselves open to a big fat defamation suit. And, if I were in Mr Le Vell's position, having just had my name dragged through the courts, I might be looking to dish out a little pain, too. So getting cute with the niceties of the legal definition of his status vis a vis a certain rape allegation would be a fucking stupid thing to do.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

He's banned for a week. I'm all for a bit of banter but that was way beyond the pale.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 10, 2013)

Sirena said:


> I'm more than a little interested in the 'life-coach' whose seminar brought the whole thing to the surface for the girl.  The allegation that Le Vell said to the girl that he was going to rid her of 'evil' rings alarming bells.  I don't know the person involved (Ali Campbell) nor the style of the seminar but NLP can be a powerful, coercive technique in the wrong hands.
> 
> It was from America (I think Ali Campbell hails from LA) that the late-80s ritual abuse hysteria came, as well as the scandalous belief in 'recovered memories'.  And, just in case anyone thinks that children always tell the truth, do a bit of research on this period of history and you will see how many people were falsely accused of child abuse, jailed and (in some cases, I believe) still may be in jail.



From what I can gather Ali Campbell is from Glasgow but has been life coach to celebs in LA. When editor first posted the accusations the 'evil' and 'demons' rang alarm bells for me too. It all sounded almost too horrific to be true but that doesn't mean it's not.

It sounds like the kid believes it happened or has been led into a position where it's impossible to retreat.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> He's banned for a week. I'm all for a bit of banter but that was way beyond the pale.


That wasn't banter.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Given that only a very small percentage of rape cases even get to court and IIRC the majority end out in not guilty cases I'd say it is ok to question not only the acquitted but the entire system that even allows this sorry fucking state of affairs.


That's rather another issue. I don't think there's much argument that the system is fucked up. But to associate that with the outcome of a particular case is a bit confused.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

Athos said:


> There was no medical evidence,



It was an historic allegation-the likelihood is there wouldnt be any.



Athos said:


> no forensic evidence



As above.



Athos said:


> and no witness evidence of the alleged offences.



There rarely is-child abusers tend to work on their own.




Athos said:


> Not even any circumstantial evidence - other victims or child porn on his computer, for example. And no history of offending, or even rumours regarding this man.



Not all child abusers are consumers of child porn. Not all child abusers abuse multiple victims. Not all child abusers have a history of abusing (until of course their caught).


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

I got the feeling that this thread would descend into madness!  But its totally out of order throwing around accusations about editor being a "rape apologist".  Completely reasonable decision to ban the originator of this accusation.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> It was an historic allegation-the likelihood is there wouldnt be any.
> 
> As above.
> 
> ...


All true. We do need to move on from these stereotypical notions of the "typical" child abuser - it doesn't help anything.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I got the feeling that this thread would descend into madness!  But its totally out of order throwing around accusations about editor being a "rape apologist".  Completely reasonable decision to ban the originator of this accusation.


The crazy thing is that I can see the point Garek was trying to make. Except he didn't need to make it, because a) it had already been made about a thousand times, b) far more fluently and clearly than he was making it, and c) because going around accusing the Head Mod of a forum site of being a "rape apologist" on a fairly legally sensitive thread is kinda taking aim at one's own instep with the elephant gun.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I got the feeling that this thread would descend into madness!  But its totally out of order throwing around accusations about editor being a "rape apologist".  Completely reasonable decision to ban the originator of this accusation.


The 'rape apologist' comment was bad enough and he was given multiple opportunities to withdraw it - but then he decided to go even further and declare that I 'sided with rape culture.' 

That really was the fucking limit.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

Garek said:


> You said "totally innocent". We live in a violent patriarchal society and a rape culture. The criminal justice system continually lets down victims of rape. I think it is a very, very dangerous thing to state that someone who is cleared in court is "totally innocent". I am not saying he did it. I am not saying he didn't do it. I am just saying that we can't now say he is "totally innocent". Courts do not exist in a vacuum. Juries do not exist in a vacuum. They are both shaped by the misogyny and patriarchal structures of the society in which we live. You are making it sound very clear cut when it really isn't.



Calling Ed a rape apologist is nonsensical but there are some excellent points in this post


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> The 'rape apologist' comment was bad enough and he was given multiple opportunities to withdraw it - but then he decided to go even further and declare that I 'sided with rape culture.'
> 
> That really was the fucking limit.


 
I don't blame you.  I would be mightily pissed off too.

The very term 'rape culture' is weird too, as it implies an awful lot about all of us, rather than focusing on those (minority) of people who commit sexual offences compared to the vast majority who obviously do not.  Just because some commit certain offences doesn't mean that is the general culture, just like we don't live in a 'murder culture' just because the minority of members of society happen to commit murder.  A strange way of thinking in my book.


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 10, 2013)

I was always under the impression that not guilty = innocent, we do not have a 2nd acquittal of not proven like in Scotland. Maybe we should but I wouldn't be happy about it - especially in a case such as this.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Calling Ed a rape apologist is nonsensical but there are some excellent points in this post


Legally, Le Vell is indeed totally innocent _as are all of us_ unless we are convicted of a crime.
It's a very important principle and a fundamental right.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Calling Ed a rape apologist is nonsensical but there are some excellent points in this post


Yeah. But he screwed the pooch rather by making them in such an inflammatory context!


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> That's rather another issue. I don't think there's much argument that the system is fucked up. But to associate that with the outcome of a particular case is a bit confused.




You cant have a discussion about this or any rape trial without disregarding context of rape victims in general.  This girl went to pieces in the witness box. She made some very serious allegations. Ultimately though her word was disregarded against his because a barrister was able to pick out inconsistencies in her statements-but lets face it...thats what their paid to do. Its the same old story. A potentially serious crime has fallen by the wayside and we'll never know whether she was lying or not-because nothing ever changes when it comes to the way rape is dealt with in society. Its business as usual.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> You cant have a discussion about this or any rape trial without disregarding context of rape victims in general.  This girl went to pieces in the witness box. She made some very serious allegations. Ultimately though her word was disregarded against him because a barrister was able to pick out inconsistencies in her statements-but lets face it...thats what their paid to do. Its the same old story. A potentially serious crime has fallen by the wayside and we'll never know whether she was lying or not-because nothing ever changes when it comes to the way rape is dealt with in society. Its business as usual.


Careful. That sounds very much like you're saying he's guilty. And perhaps those 'inconsistencies' were in fact just that - it would appear that the jury thought so and they were far more privy to the actual facts than you.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Its business as usual.


because too few rape trials end in conviction does not mean that everyone accused of rape did it.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Careful. That sounds very much like you're saying he's guilty. And perhaps those 'inconsistencies' were in fact just that - it would appear that the jury thought so and they were far more privy to the actual facts than you.



I just felt very sad at the outcome. Not because I think hes guilty (or not) but because high profile cases like this do nothing at all when it comes to justice for rape victims. So few rape cases even get to court and this case may even just reinforce the notion about false allegations being more commonplace than they actually are and it'll discourage victims even more from coming forward.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> because too few rape trials end in conviction does not mean that everyone accused of rape did it.



No where did I even say this?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> You cant have a discussion about this or any rape trial without disregarding context of rape victims in general.  This girl went to pieces in the witness box. She made some very serious allegations. Ultimately though her word was disregarded against his because a barrister was able to pick out inconsistencies in her statements-but lets face it...thats what their paid to do. Its the same old story. A potentially serious crime has fallen by the wayside and we'll never know whether she was lying or not-because nothing ever changes when it comes to the way rape is dealt with in society. Its business as usual.


 
A potentially serious crime hasn't fallen by the wayside - the proper due process was followed, and the outcome was that he was found not guilty.  Therefore he is innocent.  That's it, case closed. 

Yes there is a wider debate about issues such as the conviction rate for rape cases, but this has nothing to do with this case and they shouldn't be linked.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Yes there is a wider debate about issues such as the conviction rate for rape cases, but this has nothing to do with this case and they shouldn't be linked.


Spot on.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> A potentially serious crime hasn't fallen by the wayside - the proper due process was followed, and the outcome was that he was found not guilty.  Therefore he is innocent.  That's it, case closed.



Yes I think Doreen Lawrence may have a thing or to say about due process.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> No where did I even say this?


You at the very least suggested it. Business as usual is the failure to convict rapists, is it not?


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Yes I think Doreen Lawrence may have a thing or to say about due process.


How's that linked to this case?


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> You at the very least suggested it. Business as usual is the failure to convict rapists, is it not?




Business as usual as in the way alleged victims are put through the ringer when they appear in court. Is it right they should be questioned-course it is. But its not going to give much confidence for victims who want to come forward knowing their morals, behaviour, their statements etc are all going to be picked apart in a very public manner.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> How's that linked to this case?




Its not. Im just merely illustrating how 'due process' isnt the be all and end all of a case and it doesnt always prove to be right.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Business as usual as in the way alleged victims are put through the ringer when they appear in court. Is it right they should be questioned-course it is. But its not going to give much confidence for victims who want to come forward knowing their morals, behaviour, their statements etc are all going to be picked apart in a very public manner.


It's very much the same for the person being accused, regardless of whether they're innocent or guilty. It's a horrible business all round, but what are you proposing should change?


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Its not. Im just merely illustrating how 'due process' isnt the be all and end all of a case and it doesnt always prove to be right.


Yes, all sorts of bad things can happen in the legal system and there's been some hideous miscarriages of justice, but there is no evidence of any of that happening here so I'm not sure why you brought it up.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> I just felt very sad at the outcome. Not because I think hes guilty (or not) but because high profile cases like this do nothing at all when it comes to justice for rape victims.



So regardless of a mans guilt or innocence, you "feel sad" that he's acquitted of rape because a conviction means justice for victims.

Ffs.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> So regardless of a mans guilt or innocence, you "feel sad" that he's acquitted of rape.
> 
> Ffs.




Try reading my posts PROPERLY spymaster. Im clearly talking about the wider context of a high profile case.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes, all sorts of bad things can happen in the legal system and there's been some hideous miscarriages of justice, but there is no evidence of any of that happening here so I'm not sure why you brought it up.



Mmm...because due process isnt perfect? I thought that was obvious?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Try reading my posts PROPERLY spymaster. Im clearly talking about the wider context of a high profile case.



Bollocks. You're talking _very specifically_ about this one.

"I feel sad at the outcome"

That's what you said.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Yes I think Doreen Lawrence may have a thing or to say about due process.


 
No-one claims the system is perfect - of course it fails sometimes, as any system will to an extent.  And of course I've every sympathy for people in positions like Mrs Lawrence - it must be awful.  But that was a murder case and the issues in that case were for well-known different reasons to the debate about sexual offences conviction rates.

But a number of times on this thread people (not necessarily you) have linked the concerns around conviction rates for sexual offences with specific cases, and implied, obliquely or otherwise, that somehow the man acquitted in this case is somehow therefore guilty by extension because the system is (rightly) geared towards the prosecution proving guilt rather than the defence proving innocence.  This is why some posters were skating on legal thin ice by making, or appearing to make, such an association.  It is almost as if some posters were looking forward to a visit to the High Court, and like to throw away lots of money on legal costs.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 10, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Business as usual as in the way alleged victims are put through the ringer when they appear in court. Is it right they should be questioned-course it is. But its not going to give much confidence for victims who want to come forward knowing their morals, behaviour, their statements etc are all going to be picked apart in a very public manner.


There should be plenty of consideration given to the victim. The trial process is sometimes described as a second rape and that can't be right. But that is separate from what actually went on in this particular case. We can't draw an inference from an observation of the general outcome.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Bollocks. You're talking _very specifically_ about this one.
> 
> "I feel sad at the outcome"
> 
> That's what you said.



...because of how victims may view the case. Is there any need by the way to get hostile Spymaster?


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 10, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> But a number of times on this thread people (not necessarily you) have linked the concerns around conviction rates for sexual offences with specific cases, and implied, obliquely or otherwise, that somehow the man acquitted in this case is somehow therefore guilty



Yes...funnily enough-the issue of false allegations often comes up in debates like this. Whose right or wrong eh.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> ...because of how victims may view the case. Is there any need by the way to get hostile Spymaster?



So you'd feel less "sad" if he'd been convicted, regardless of how the jury viewed the weight of evidence, because it would encourage rape victims. Never mind that the guy might be innocent (and legally is in this case), convict him and you won't feel "sad". 

I'm sorry but you need to have a serious rethink.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 11, 2013)

editor said:


> It's very much the same for the person being accused, regardless of whether they're innocent or guilty. It's a horrible business all round...


 
Damn straight.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2013)

Is it OK to say I think he's still got a case to answer? I as a member of the pubic making a value judgment. To in no way defame or slur him

but I have seen him on corrie working on 12 year old Escorts


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> So you'd feel less "sad" if he'd been convicted, regardless of how the jury viewed the weight of evidence, because it would encourage rape victims.



Strawman


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Mmm...because due process isnt perfect? I thought that was obvious?


 therefore everyone accused of rape is guilty. If you doubt every not guilty verdict, that's really what you're saying.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I'm sorry but you need to have a serious rethink.



Not really. Its all opinions-and its very late for me too. Good night Spymaster


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> therefore everyone accused of rape is guilty. If you doubt every not guilty verdict, that's really what you're saying.



Strawman-again. That really is my last word for tonight...its getting late!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Strawman



Wtf do you mean "strawman"?

That's exactly what you said!

Christ almighty, read what you're posting.


----------



## Errol's son (Sep 11, 2013)

[quote=" Having said that, 19 charges does seem to be a lot.[/quote]

Are similar charges being made against TV presenters in other European countries at present or is this a peculiarly British thing?  As a Brit who lives outside Europe with sporadic internet access, it would be interesting to know if this is a British problem or a wider issue...


----------



## 8ball (Sep 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Is it OK to say I think he's still got a case to answer? I as a member of the pubic making a value judgment. To in no way defame or slur him
> 
> but I have seen him on corrie working on 12 year old Escorts


 
Ouch!

(were they even making Escorts 12 years ago?)


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Yes...funnily enough-the issue of false allegations often comes up in debates like this. Whose right or wrong eh.


 
As it has in this thread to an extent.  However, the same considerations apply about being careful not to even give the impression that a post is casting aspersions about specific individuals who have not been found to have done 'x' through the due legal process.

It would be better if this wider debate was on a completely separate 'clean' thread so no inferences could be drawn about specific individuals/cases. 

And with that, I'm going to bed, so night all.  Play nicely everyone!


----------



## Sirena (Sep 11, 2013)

I think most people agree Jimmy Savile was guilty but accusations against him included this one

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/370439/Jimmy-Savile-was-part-of-satanic-ring

and you don't even have to know who Valerie Sinason (the person who helped the victim 'remember') is to know that this allegation is fantasy.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> A
> 
> It would be better if this wider debate was on a completely separate 'clean' thread so no inferences could be drawn about specific individuals/cases.
> 
> And with that, I'm going to bed, so night all.  Play nicely everyone!



Now that WOULD be impossible. Thats like saying we cant debate race attacks in a thread about the stephen lawrence case. Or police brutality in a thread about Ian Tomlinson. Goodnight to your good self too-this really is it for one day


----------



## 8ball (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Now that WOULD be impossible. Thats like saying we cant debate race attacks in a thread about the stephen lawrence case. Or police brutality in a thread about Ian Tomlinson. Goodnight to your good self too-this really is it for one day


 
It's a reasonable suggestion that people can discuss things in a more abstracted manner.  I agree with you that we shouldn't constrain the range of discussion relating to real cases, but I don't think that is what farmerbarleymow was suggesting.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2013)

Sirena said:


> I think most people agree Jimmy Savile was guilty but accusations against him included this one...


That's the UK libel laws in action. If someone is dead (or has been thoroughly discredited and has no 'reputation' left to defend) then you can make up any old shit about them*!

*note: this is a general point and not a comment on the article referenced


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> It was an historic allegation-the likelihood is there wouldnt be any.
> 
> As above.
> 
> ...



All true. I'm not arguing that it's inconceivable they there could be an instance of rape where there's no evidence other than a victim's testimony. However, I'm suggesting that,  in this case, that testimony alone is insufficient to justify some of what's being implied. It's getting close to a situation where there's a presumption of guilt simply by virtue of an allegation.

I've already said that I've no doubt that rapists walk free. But I've no reason to think that's happened in this case.

However, to return to the general point, I think the procedures should change to make the process as victim friendly as possible, but no so far as to prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial. We can't let the fact that, statistically speaking, some rapists are getting off, cause us to try to rectify that by instituting measures that might result in the conviction of innocent people.

That's an incredibly slippery slope - essentially calling for the removal of some of the safeguards that keep the state's power over all of us in check. 

At the end of the day, where should the benefit of doubt rest? Personally, I think it better that a guilty man walks free than an innocent one is convicted. As soon as you prefer the second option, the state can just about justify almost anything e.g. one of that group of lads is the burglar, so lock them all up. Round up the usual suspects etc.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2013)

Has this been posted yet? 

https://twitter.com/search?q=#ibelieveher&src=hash&f=realtime

Some more idiot Twitter users who are making themselves easy targets for the police by calling him a rapist and using the hashtag #ibelieveher


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Has this been posted yet?
> 
> https://twitter.com/search?q=#ibelieveher&src=hash&f=realtime
> 
> Some more idiot Twitter users who are making themselves easy targets for the police by calling him a rapist and using the hashtag #ibelieveher


 
Why doesn't this surprise me?  The tag alone says it all - biased much?

And they've obviously missed the large amount of press coverage about people being taken to court for comments on Twitter...


----------



## Thora (Sep 11, 2013)

"We Believe You" has been a campaign around rape awareness for a while - though it looks like most people using that hashtag are saying the opposite to me.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Thora said:


> "We Believe You" has been a campaign around rape awareness for a while - though it looks like most people using that hashtag are saying the opposite to me.


 
This morning was the first time I'd heard of it to be honest, as I don't use Twitter.  But by any measure some of the comments under that hashtag are very concerning, and do, in my view, undermine the very thing they are ostensibly trying to support - which I presume is better conviction stats.

There are comments on there which seem to take the view that despite a court ruling, through a jury system that has served us for nearly 800 years, is not enough - the man is guilty regardless.  That is nonsense by definition, as not every defendant brought to court will be guilty, and to claim or suggest otherwise does not exactly help move the debate about conviction stats forward.

It is a shame people taking such extreme positions don't recognise that they are damaging the very cause they espouse.  But it has ever been thus.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> All true. I'm not arguing that it's inconceivable they there could be an instance of rape where there's no evidence other than a victim's testimony. However, I'm suggesting that,  in this case, that testimony alone is insufficient to justify some of what's being implied. It's getting close to a situation where there's a presumption of guilt simply by virtue of an allegation.
> 
> I've already said that I've no doubt that rapists walk free. But I've no reason to think that's happened in this case.
> 
> ...



An excellent post, particularly this: 

"I think the procedures should change to make the process as victim friendly as possible, but no so far as to prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial".

I'd add, "or to deny him the presumption of absolute innocence if acquitted", which several posters are doing on this thread. 

The aim should be to bring more accused rapists to court and increase the numbers of convictions of those genuinely guilty. Not to regardlessly increase numbers of convictions so more accusations are made, which seems to be what Granny is implying. I'm not sure how this can be achieved in practice and would be interested in seeing some suggestions.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 11, 2013)

I see a certain newspaper headline is in bad taste this morning.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 11, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I got the feeling that this thread would descend into madness!  But its totally out of order throwing around accusations about editor being a "rape apologist".  Completely reasonable decision to ban the originator of this accusation.



Ban apologist


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> I see a certain newspaper headline is in bad taste this morning.


 
Which one? I can guess it is one of the usual suspects...


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> An excellent post, particularly this:
> 
> "I think the procedures should change to make the process as victim friendly as possible, but no so far as to prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial".
> 
> ...



Hmmmm. Not sure where I stand on the presumption of innocence, generally.  Of course,  I think it's an essential safeguard that, in the eyes of the law, everyone is innocent unless and until they are found guilty. But I don't think that means that our personal  analyses must defer to those of the court. There are lots of cases in which I remain convinced that the court got things wrong (and many provable examples). But, in this instance, I see nothing to convince me of his guilt, even as measured against a lower standard of proof i.e. the balance of probabilities.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> But I don't think that means that our personal  analyses must defer to those of the court.



Then here we disagree. Without very good reason I think they absolutely should. Certainly on internet message boards concerning identifiable individuals, and especially the day after acquittal.

I can think of few cases where (in the absence of further post trial evidence) the jury can be said to have been obviously wrong.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 11, 2013)

Something to consider: this guy was accused about two years ago. I doubt he has worked between then and now. How would you like being unable to work for two years?


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 11, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Something to consider: this guy was accused about two years ago. I doubt he has worked between then and now. How would you like being unable to work for two years?



No, he has worked.  The first time he was accused the CPS decided to drop the case on the grounds of lack of evidence.  They then decided to proceed with the case regardless (around the time this thread was written): it was then that he was dropped from Corrie.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> Then here we disagree. Without very good reason I think they absolutely should. Certainly on internet message boards concerning identifiable individuals.



But it's a logical nonsense. Not only have courts been shown to make mistakes, but also, what about the following scenario?  I see you commit a crime; I give evidence that you did; you give evidence that you didn't; the jury prefers your version of events, and you are acquitted. Am I now to believe in your innocence?

It seems that some of the thinking on this thread has been confused by the conflation of two issues: the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law; and a moral  requirement that individuals' personal analyses defer to those of the court. (On top of that, there's the complication of libel.)

My position is that the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law is an essential safeguard for all of us, and that the consequences of tinkering with it (or the standard or burden of proof) in these sorts of cases is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. The introduction of any system which (based on poor conviction statistics) is predicated on the idea that it's preferable for them innocent to be convicted rather than the guilty go free would be a disaster. (That said, I support everything that can be done to make the system more victim friendly, short of I infringing on the rights of the accused.)

On the second point, I would say that, generally, I see no reason for individuals' private opinions to defer to those of the court, not least of all because a different standard of proof will apply - in assessing whether or not a defendant 'did it',  individuals will decide what they feel is most likely on the balance of probabilities.  (Though the wisdom of publicising those  opinions is another issue. )  But, in this case, my opinion, based on my understanding of the evidence, is that he did not commit the offences.

I have no problem with individuals who adopt a default position of believing a victim. In this patriarchal and sexist rape culture in which we live, that might be a good thing. But I do have a problem with the idea that such a starting point should apply in criminal proceedings. What such a radical feminist standpoint overlooks is the importance of class. The fact that the law and the criminal justice system are tools by which the ruling class oppress the working class. It cannot be right to weaken the few checks upon it that exist currently.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Given that only a very small percentage of rape cases even get to court


 
Yes




			
				Grandma Death said:
			
		

> and IIRC the majority end out in not guilty


 
No.

See post #133;  63% of cases that come to court result in a guilty verdict.


Of course far too few make it to court, but as rape is often one person's word against another, but always very harrowing for the alleged victim and accused, perhaps the CPS is right not to turn every allegation in to a full-blown court case.


----------



## silverfish (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Business as usual as in the way alleged victims are put through the ringer when they appear in court. Is it right they should be questioned-course it is. But its not going to give much confidence for victims who want to come forward knowing their morals, behaviour, their statements etc are all going to be picked apart in a very public manner.



In the same manner that occurs to the accused but without the veil of anonymity


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh wow - I just link-hopped several times from the original Twitter link Fez909 posted above and there are some seriously deluded people out there.  Scary to think that they are allowed to use computers.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

silverfish said:


> In the same manner that occurs to the accused but without the veil of anonymity?


 
Exactly right.  I have always thought that for offences of this nature both parties should get anonymity.  If someone is convicted, then fair enough to release the name - as the arguments that others may come forward with similar stories as a result is a valid one, but not before.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> But it's a logical nonsense. Not only have courts been shown to make mistakes, but also, what about the following scenario?  I see you commit a crime; I give evidence that you did; you give evidence that you didn't; the jury prefers your version of events, and you are acquitted. Am I now to believe in your innocence?



Of course not, but that's a very different situation. You would be in possession of the certain knowledge that I committed the crime. That's completely different to _others_ speculating that I did it in the absence of that knowledge.



> On the second point, I would say that, generally, I see no reason for individuals' private opinions to defer to those of the court, not least of all because a different standard of proof will apply - in assessing whether or not a defendant 'did it',  individuals will decide what they feel is most likely on the balance of probabilities.  (Though the wisdom of publicising those  opinions is another issue. )



Well the substantive issue is in your last sentence. These private opinions are anything but if they're aired on social media, in the press etc., and undermine the very important principle of _innocent unless proven guilty_.

I agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Exactly right.  I have always thought that for offences of this nature both parties should get anonymity.  If someone is convicted, then fair enough to release the name - as the arguments that others may come forward with similar stories as a result is a valid one, but not before.


John Worboys was only convicted because the police released his name before trial - otherwise they didn't have enough evidence to secure a conviction as he drugged his victims. 

I have no reason to believe that LaVell's career won't continue as it was before. As has Craig Charles'. It's a nonsense to say that if you're a high profile figure and accused of rape and found not guilty that your career is dead. There were lots of other reasons for John Leslie's fall from grace, it wasn't just because of Wright's 'gaffe'


----------



## andysays (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> But it's a logical nonsense. Not only have courts been shown to make mistakes, but also, what about the following scenario?  I see you commit a crime; I give evidence that you did; you give evidence that you didn't; the jury prefers your version of events, and you are acquitted. Am I now to believe in your innocence?...



Although I agree with a lot of what you've said on this thread, I think you're wrong on this.

To be legally guilty of commiting a crime, not just the action (which you as an observer can clearly see) has to be proven, but also the intention (which you can't). The jury has to make a judgement on this - it's open to interpretation and therefore dispute - but in legal terms (which are the only terms it's sensible to use when we're talking about a crime) your judgement as an observer or witness is not relevant, and your role is confined to what you saw rather than what you think about what you saw.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 11, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Which one? I can guess it is one of the usual suspects...



Im sure you can guess!


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> John Worboys was only convicted because the police released his name before trial - otherwise they didn't have enough evidence to secure a conviction as he drugged his victims.
> 
> I have no reason to believe that LaVell's career won't continue as it was before. As has Craig Charles'. It's a nonsense to say that if you're a high profile figure and accused of rape and found not guilty that your career is dead. There were lots of other reasons for John Leslie's fall from grace, it wasn't just because of Wright's 'gaffe'


 
There will always be cases like the one you mention, but the nature of such charges is so loaded (far worse than murder I think) that the fact that the name of the defendant is released is enough for lots of people, including some here, to assume they are guilty.  You have to remember that the defendant's life is raked over in great detail in court - and gleefully reported.  This isn't right to me, and it doesn't appear to be 'justice served' if someone's life is raked over and trashed for an allegation they are acquitted on.

I'm sure the process could be designed so that exceptional cases like the one cited above could be appropriately handled to assist in the evidence-gathering process. 

Re your second paragraph, I didn't make any reference to the career of any such high-profile defendants, as far as I can recall, so I guess you are referring to others.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Im sure you can guess!


 
I think I might have a vague idea! 

Will have a look in the newsagents.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2013)

*I've edited the thread title for clarity


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> There will always be cases like the one you mention, but the nature of such charges is so loaded (far worse than murder I think) that the fact that the name of the defendant is released is enough for lots of people, including some here, to assume they are guilty.  You have to remember that the defendant's life is raked over in great detail in court - and gleefully reported.  This isn't right to me, and it doesn't appear to be 'justice served' if someone's life is raked over and trashed for an allegation they are acquitted on.
> 
> I'm sure the process could be designed so that exceptional cases like the one cited above could be appropriately handled to assist in the evidence-gathering process.
> 
> Re your second paragraph, I didn't make any reference to the career of any such high-profile defendants, as far as I can recall, so I guess you are referring to others.



Rapists don't generally rape once. It's a serial crime. And what you're proposing is that we treat rapes/sexual assault cases differently from all other crimes. Someone who's standing trial for worse things (murder) gets named. Why is rape/sexual assault different? Unless you're assuming that the balance of probability is that the victim is lying. 

I think the victim's life and behaviour is raked over and gleefully reported in rape cases a lot more than the defendant's. If the defendant has convictions for similar crimes, they are not allowed to be disclosed in court. 

I didn't say you made any reference to John Leslie - I was generally responding to points made in the thread while quoting your post. Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> I think the victim's life and behaviour is raked over and gleefully reported in rape cases a lot more than the defendant's.


Not entirely sure that's true in all case, you know.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Not entirely sure that's true in all case, you know.


It's a fact that the victim's sexual history is considered relevant. If the defendant has a previous prosecution for similar crimes, the prosecution is not allowed to mention them


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> It's a fact that the victim's sexual history is considered relevant. If the defendant has a previous prosecution for similar crimes, the prosecution is not allowed to mention them


 

Sorry to be all detective boy, but neither of those statements is true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> It's a fact that the victim's sexual history is considered relevant. If the defendant has a previous prosecution for similar crimes, the prosecution is not allowed to mention them


perhaps you ought to do some research on the subject before making statements you can't support.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Rapists don't generally rape once. It's a serial crime. And what you're proposing is that we treat rapes/sexual assault cases differently from all other crimes. Someone who's standing trial for worse things (murder) gets named. Why is rape/sexual assault different? Unless you're assuming that the balance of probability is that the victim is lying.



I'm not sure why it's ever necessary to name a suspect, except perhaps in cases where the suspect is still at large and a danger to the public. It seems to me that in most cases it's just done so the plod can say 'look at us, we caught someone!' Naming a suspect before a trial or even before charges have been brought can only prejudice further proceedings, and will often irrevocably damage that suspect's life before any allegations against them have been proven.

Anonymity for suspects would also hopefully reduce the chances of people making false allegations of rape, as there would be less for the accuser to 'gain' from it. Not that I'm one of those people who think that this is a widespread issue, but clearly it does happen.


----------



## pissflaps (Sep 11, 2013)

possibly to encourage other victims to come forward?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Rapists don't generally rape once. It's a serial crime. And what you're proposing is that we treat rapes/sexual assault cases differently from all other crimes. Someone who's standing trial for worse things (murder) gets named. Why is rape/sexual assault different? Unless you're assuming that the balance of probability is that the victim is lying.
> 
> I think the victim's life and behaviour is raked over and gleefully reported in rape cases a lot more than the defendant's. If the defendant has convictions for similar crimes, they are not allowed to be disclosed in court.
> 
> I didn't say you made any reference to John Leslie - I was generally responding to points made in the thread while quoting your post. Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth.


 
I understand the points you make, but the nature of an allegation of a sexual assault is uniquely serious and obviously leads to the 'no smoke without fire' consequences, that it would be fairer to provide anonymity to both sides, until the point the case is concluded (with relevant special exceptions I mentioned above).

If an alleged murder gets acquitted I doubt people think that the acquitted individual is going to be a risk to the general community by murdering people, but this stigma does attach to those charged with sexual offences.  People do think along the lines of 'women shouldn't be alone with him' or 'keep your kids away from him' etc., even though they've been acquitted.  You only need to read the effects on people acquitted of such offences to see the enormity of the damage the lack of anonymity can do to their lives.  This is why the defendant should be given anonymity.

We already treat sexual offences differently from other crimes anyway - due to the anonymity already given to the plaintiff.  Sexual offences are special offences because of their very nature, so require very careful handling, to ensure fairness and justice for both sides.

I don't doubt rape can be a serial crime, but the general principle remains that a defendant is tried for the specific alleged offence, and any other offences they may have committed in the past are generally not disclosed to the jury - for good reason - until after conviction or acquittal.

I hope I don't need to state that I don't think the balance of probabilities is that the victim is lying.  Most of the time they are not, but some of the time they are.

Re Leslie - glad it wasn't just me going mad!  I was thinking 'did I say that?' but wanted to check first before ploughing back through the thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> possibly to encourage other victims to come forward?


so this is when there's a SUSPECT and an ALLEGED victim.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sorry to be all detective boy, but neither of those statements is true.


Sorry - that was my understanding of the law. I know that in the Sara Payne case, the fact that her murderer had previously done time for abducting and assaulting a child was kept from the jury. Has the law now changed? 

And in response to farmerbarleymow 

Stuart Hall. Jimmy Savile. John Warboys. Without their names being mentioned, a lot of victims would have not seen justice done. I don't think sexual assault cases should be subject to different laws to other cases.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. This is a subject that comes up time and again whenever a rape/sexual assault case collapses but I don't think the reasons for changing the law are good enough.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Sorry - that was my understanding of the law. I know that in the Sara Payne case, the fact that her murderer had previously done time for abducting and assaulting a child was kept from the jury. Has the law now changed?


 
The law has not changed. Previous convictions can be disclosed if the judge feels that they are relevant and have bearing on the case at hand. For whatever reason the judge in the Sarah Payne case decided that his previous should not be disclosed. (Purely as speculation, with not disclosing previous and yet still getting a guilty, it makes that guilty much more sound; could be one reason a judge may make that call).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Sorry - that was my understanding of the law. I know that in the Sara Payne case, the fact that her murderer had previously done time for abducting and assaulting a child was kept from the jury. Has the law now changed?
> 
> And in response to farmerbarleymow
> 
> ...


i think you'll find that not a single one of savile's victims ever saw justice done, but if you know different i'd like to see the evidence.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> <snip>
> 
> And in response to farmerbarleymow
> 
> ...


 
I mentioned that the process could be designed to allow for exceptions where this was necessary for evidence gathering.  Quite how that would work in practice I don't know, but thankfully that's someone else's problem!

But Saville wouldn't be affected anyway, as the allegations all arose after he was dead mainly, with the exception of those who went to the police over the decades but no action was taken.

The case that started with this thread didn't 'collapse', but was properly concluded and the defendant found not guilty.  Although some cases clearly do collapse.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 11, 2013)

Sirena said:
			
		

> I think most people agree Jimmy Savile was guilty



There were a few on here who scoffed at the idea, even when libel was no longer an issue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 11, 2013)

I take a different lesson from John Worboys - the consequences of the failure of the police to take reports of attacks seriously. 

wrt to this case, was there really no other evidence than the accuser's testimony? With nothing else to corroborate the allegation, it becomes a straight 'your word against mine'. I don't see how that could ever pass a test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

andysays said:
			
		

> Although I agree with a lot of what you've said on this thread, I think you're wrong on this.
> 
> To be legally guilty of commiting a crime, not just the action (which you as an observer can clearly see) has to be proven, but also the intention (which you can't). The jury has to make a judgement on this - it's open to interpretation and therefore dispute - but in legal terms (which are the only terms it's sensible to use when we're talking about a crime) your judgement as an observer or witness is not relevant, and your role is confined to what you saw rather than what you think about what you saw.



That's not right. There's lots of strict liability offences which don't require any state of mind.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find that not a single one of savile's victims ever saw justice done, but if you know different i'd like to see the evidence.


True. Comfort is a better word perhaps.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

I am not in favour of anonymity for defendants. Not only because it offends against the principle of justice being seen to be done, but also because of the fact that, sometimes, it is only after cases are reported that further victims come forward.


----------



## andysays (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> That's not right. There's lots of strict liability offences which don't require any state of mind.



OK, maybe there's a gap in my knowledge. Got an example?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 11, 2013)

andysays said:


> OK, maybe there's a gap in my knowledge. Got an example?


Statutory rape?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Will that change the conviction rate?   Sure the assumption is a problem but its hard for me to see how we are going to make any meaningful difference to the conviction rate without overcoming this whole 'one word against another' issue in a court of law.



The problem is you can't overcome it within an adversarial system.
I'd go further and say that the adversarial system as practised in the UK and the USA (probably the two most polarising forms of it) could effectively be a bar to the attainment of justice in sex offence cases, because of the nature of the institutions that are supposed to bring justice.  By this I mean that our criminal justice system, even after 40 years of legislated "sexual equality", is still male-heavy, and redolent of the attitudes of upper- and upper middle-class males, and their internalised prejudices and assumptions about women, female sexuality and women's roles.



> I go back to my original point, it seems to me it should not be enough for a defence to shout 'liar' without providing some plausible explanation of why. Should it not be the case that in some cases the testimony of a victim should be perceived to carry greater weight?



There's the rub.  If you weight testimony, then effectively you deny justice, which should be "blind".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> but in a society that believes in rampant female abuse of the justice system through false allegations, they don't need to prove anything. just saying that women lie is enough to create questions. doing any more than necessary might backfire.



Just as in a society that still hasn't quite got its head around gender equality, the gender of the victim of a sex offence can add weight to assumptions that there were all sorts of factors in place that militated toward the offender committing the offence.  Shit, we still get otherwise-rational people coming out with the old "she was asking for it, wearing that mini-skirt/hessian sack/burqa" _schtick_.

Of course, there's one factor that disproves "rampant female abuse of the justice system", but it's one that the conspiranutters proposing the abuse never avail themselves of - the fact that women come off so badly within our criminal justice system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

editor said:


> No.



TBF,. the "all time high" rate of conviction is still pretty pathetic, given the number of cases that are NFA'd (no further action) by the OB and the CPS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> your link discusses the number of convictions out of the cases that make it to court. most reports don't get as far as court.



13% last time I checked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> I am not in favour of anonymity for defendants. Not only because it offends against the principle of justice being seen to be done, but also because of the fact that, sometimes, it is only after cases are reported that further victims come forward.


further ALLEGED victims i think you'll find


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> You've answered your own question here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An absolute presumption of innocence, based on available evidence, is still, just like the presumption of guilt conferred by a guilty verdict, a presumption.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> So you think it's ok to question the innocence of those _acquitted_ of rape?



A friend's brother was acquited of rape. I've been questioning his innocence for 17 years.  The world isn't as nicely black-and-white as you'd like.


----------



## andysays (Sep 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Statutory rape?



Yeah, that's a good example. I can't imagine there's enough of those to undermine my general point that simply witnessing an apparently criminal act doesn't always enable you to state categorically that someone is guilty of commiting a crime.

But I'm probably guilty of derailing again...


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> I am not in favour of anonymity for defendants. Not only because it offends against the principle of justice being seen to be done, but also because of the fact that, sometimes, it is only after cases are reported that further victims come forward.


 
I argue that anonymity should apply to both sides, with only very rare exceptions like which were discussed above.  However, I don't agree that anonymity for defendants offends against the principle of justice being seen to be done, as by that logic, surely the complainant having anonymity equally offends as it distorts the principle of justice?  

Of course cases could be reported after conviction (hence justice seen to be done), which could result in further cases being brought to the attention of the police.  But the current situation creates a distorted sense of justice, in that one side can have absolute anonymity, but the other is fed to the wolves of public opprobrium, irrespective of whether they are convicted or acquitted.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Im sure you can guess!


 
Daily Star?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

editor said:


> How's that linked to this case?



Due process is influenced by the individual and collective preferences and prejudices of those who work within the criminal justice system, whether that's with regard to a sexual offence or a murder.
Due process may be quantified, but rules and regulations can be and are constantly bent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Try reading my posts PROPERLY spymaster. Im clearly talking about the wider context of a high profile case.



He's posting post-11pm. The red wine won't *let* him read your posts properly!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> However, to return to the general point, I think the procedures should change to make the process as victim friendly as possible, but no so far as to prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial. We can't let the fact that, statistically speaking, some rapists are getting off, cause us to try to rectify that by instituting measures that might result in the conviction of innocent people.



Procedures were already changed more than 10 years ago, to make it easier for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence.
Unfortunately, as the application of those changes is policed by the "front-line" of the criminal justice system - the judges and lawyers, they're as often attended to in their breach as in their observance, so minors still get harrassed by defence counsel, and judges and juries still make presumptions based on class, gender and race.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> Hmmmm. Not sure where I stand on the presumption of innocence, generally.  Of course,  I think it's an essential safeguard that, in the eyes of the law, everyone is innocent unless and until they are found guilty. But I don't think that means that our personal  analyses must defer to those of the court. There are lots of cases in which I remain convinced that the court got things wrong (and many provable examples). But, in this instance, I see nothing to convince me of his guilt, even as measured against a lower standard of proof i.e. the balance of probabilities.



The "presumption of innocence conferred by a 'not guilty' verdict" (as Spymaster put it) is, we should remember, technical (in that it effectively says this person was found not guilty by dint of evidence or lack of evidence presented). It's *not* absolving of a defendant's character in the way that some people assume.
It's also different to the presumption of innocence granted to *all* defendants during legal proceedings, which is a mechanism that attempts to ensure a degree of "neutrality" in the deliberations of the jury and (as far as possible) the machinations of the criminal justice system.

I don't mind either presumption of innocence, just as long as they're not taken to mean anything other than the above.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> John Worboys was only convicted because the police released his name before trial - otherwise they didn't have enough evidence to secure a conviction as he drugged his victims.
> 
> I have no reason to believe that LaVell's career won't continue as it was before. As has Craig Charles'. It's a nonsense to say that if you're a high profile figure and accused of rape and found not guilty that your career is dead. There were lots of other reasons for John Leslie's fall from grace, it wasn't just because of Wright's 'gaffe'



Leslie's character, as highlighted by former friends and associates, contributed, as did his own demeanour.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The world isn't as nicely black-and-white as you'd like.



I'm afraid in the eyes of English law, where matters of guilt or innocence are concerned, it very much is.



> A friend's brother was acquited of rape. I've been questioning his innocence for 17 years.



On public message boards?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> An absolute presumption of innocence, based on available evidence, is still, just like the presumption of guilt conferred by a guilty verdict, a presumption.



Not sure what your point is here.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

andysays said:


> Yeah, that's a good example. I can't imagine there's enough of those to undermine my general point that simply witnessing an apparently criminal act doesn't always enable you to state categorically that someone is guilty of commiting a crime.
> 
> But I'm probably guilty of derailing again...



I think in the broader context it's a fair point. You may see me kill someone but if that's all you saw, you couldn't be sure that I'd committed murder.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I'm afraid in the eyes of English law, where matters of guilt or innocence are concerned, it very much is.



If that were the case, then why the need for any remedial functions within the legal corpus, hmm? If things are as black and white as you believe, then everything would resolve down to the guilty being found guilty, and the innocent being found innocent.
As that *isn't* actually the case, I suspect that you're talking arse again.



> On public message boards?



To his face. In public.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Not sure what your point is here.



That a presumption of innocence or guilt (absolute or otherwise) is....you guessed it!!! A presumption.
It's a presumption based on available evidence, so it's "well-informed", but it's still only a presumption, not an absolute declaration of unalloyed innocence.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If that were the case, then why the need for any remedial functions within the legal corpus, hmm? If things are as black and white as you believe, then everything would resolve down to the guilty being found guilty, and the innocent being found innocent.
> As that *isn't* actually the case, I suspect that you're talking arse again.



Well if we're going to be rude, you're talking shit.

Nobody has suggested that guilty people sometimes don't walk, or that innocents don't sometimes go down.

The point being made here, rather clearly to all but you it seems, is that an acquitted person has an absolute legal right to be treated as innocent _whether he did it or not. _


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 11, 2013)

If someone is acquitted, they walk away innocent. Unless you have good reason to think otherwise (and that doesn't include an issue with number of convictions generally), that should be the end of it.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That a presumption of innocence or guilt (absolute or otherwise) is....you guessed it!!! A presumption.
> It's a presumption based on available evidence, so it's "well-informed", but it's still only a presumption, not an absolute declaration of unalloyed innocence.



Addressed in #347.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> To his face. In public.



Then that's potentially slanderous.

Write it on the internet, or print it in a paper and you may, quite rightly, find yourself in libel shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> I am not in favour of anonymity for defendants. Not only because it offends against the principle of justice being seen to be done, but also because of the fact that, sometimes, it is only after cases are reported that further victims come forward.



I'm undecided on anonymity.

As far as the principle of _justice being seen to be done, _shouldn't that necessitate that both accused _and_ accuser are named?

Regarding other victims coming forward, as Pickers is pointing out, they are at that point _alleged_ victims. So what happens is that unproven allegations bolster an unproven allegation. Now that _may_ not be a bad thing in the case of a potential serial sex-slug, but it does seem legally questionable.

Dunno.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well if we're going to be rude, you're talking shit.



Coming from a past-master of faecal oration, that's almost a compliment!



> Nobody has suggested that guilty people sometimes don't walk, or that innocents don't sometimes go down.
> 
> The point being made here, rather clearly to all but you it seems...



You should give up attempting sarcasm.  You're not very good at it.



> ...is that an acquitted person has an absolute legal right to be treated as innocent _whether he did it or not. _



Nope, you have a legal right only so far as you can afford to *exercise* it, here in the UK. There's no statute(s) directing your treatment except insofar as when someone legally transgresses your right, and you then exercise your right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> If someone is acquitted, they walk away innocent. Unless you have good reason to think otherwise (and that doesn't include an issue with number of convictions generally), that should be the end of it.



No, they walk away acquitted.  That is, some combination of lack of evidence, poorly-presented evidence or other factors leads to acquittal.  Innocence is relative.
And yes, I agree that once you've been found "not guilty", that should be the end of it, legally-speaking.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, you have a legal right only so far as you can afford to *exercise* it, here in the UK.



 _Massive_ straw-clutch given that this thread concerns a presumably wealthy celebrity and the prospect of potential libel action.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Then that's potentially slanderous.
> 
> Write it on the internet, or print it in a paper and you may, quite rightly, find yourself in libel shit.



Of course it's *potentially*-slanderous.  
Of course I *may* find myself "in libel shit".
Especially if I couldn't make a good case for the acquittal having been based on a poor uncovering of the defendant's history by the prosecution.

Which probably explains why I've had no legal trouble from him, even when he's had the means to do so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Massive straw-clutch given that this thread concerns a presumably wealthy celebrity and the prospect of potential libel action.



Not really. All rights are only useful as far as we're able to exercise them.  Celebrity status may imply wealth to people who read "Hello!", but it's not exactly a gauge any sensible person trusts, and given that any sum recoverable from your average internet peasant would be minimal, it'd be a poor bet to exercise that right even if you could front up the readies to hire Carter Ruck or some other pond-life.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. All rights are only useful as far as we're able to exercise them.  Celebrity status may imply wealth to people who read "Hello!", but it's not exactly a gauge any sensible person trusts, and given that any sum recoverable from your average internet peasant would be minimal, it'd be a poor bet to exercise that right even if you could front up the readies to hire Carter Ruck or some other pond-life.



So, say what you like .... Le Vell _might not_ sue you or the site? 

Keep clutching them straws!


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yes, I agree that once you've been found "not guilty", that should be the end of it, legally-speaking.


Not just legally-speaking. Anyone who doesn't have a specifically good reason to challenge the verdict, that means pretty much everyone not involved, should accept it as the end of it.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 11, 2013)

Fucking stupid. Seems like they're banking on being in such numbers that they won't get done.


Fez909 said:


> Has this been posted yet?
> 
> https://twitter.com/search?q=#ibelieveher&src=hash&f=realtime
> 
> Some more idiot Twitter users who are making themselves easy targets for the police by calling him a rapist and using the hashtag #ibelieveher



I understand there are as many tweeters calling the accuser a fucking bitch etc etc.

I've heard it all in work today. Everyone has a story of someone who knows someone, this is Manchester after all. I seemed to be the lone voice believing there was any possibilty that he was innocent.


----------



## Onket (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A friend's brother was acquited of rape. I've been questioning his innocence for 17 years.





ViolentPanda said:


> To his face. In public.



And his brother is still your friend?!


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2013)

Chip Barm said:


> Fucking stupid. Seems like they're banking on being in such numbers that they won't get done.
> 
> 
> I understand there are as many tweeters calling the accuser a fucking bitch etc etc.
> ...



There was one tweet which seemed to acknowledge the possibility they'd be done by the police (what would the crime be; contempt of court? Perverting the course of justice?) but still posted it anyway!

It said something about waiting for the inevitable knock on the door. People really don't realise that there are consequences to what you post on Twitter and elsewhere, and then they act all shocked and surprised when it comes back to bite them. She hasn't even got the excuse that she didn't know she'd get in trouble as she mentioned her possible arrest in the tweet


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2013)

Onket said:


> And his brother is still your friend?!



Yes.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> There was one tweet which seemed to acknowledge the possibility they'd be done by the police (what would the crime be; contempt of court? Perverting the course of justice?) but still posted it anyway!
> 
> It said something about waiting for the inevitable knock on the door. People really don't realise that there are consequences to what you post on Twitter and elsewhere, and then they act all shocked and surprised when it comes back to bite them. She hasn't even got the excuse that she didn't know she'd get in trouble as she mentioned her possible arrest in the tweet


 
Don't know whether you link-hopped like me, but I found some shocking stuff on various feeds.  But as you say, too many people think they are immune from the law when they post this sort of shite on social media, only to whine pathetically when up in court.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Don't know whether you link-hopped like me, but I found some shocking stuff on various feeds.  But as you say, too many people think they are immune from the law when they post this sort of shite on social media, only to whine pathetically when up in court.



I had to do a fair bit of digging to get to the initial comments, yeah, as most of those posted with that hashtag are now criticising the earlier ones. Some crazy stuff, for sure.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

andysays said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's a good example. I can't imagine there's enough of those to undermine my general point that simply witnessing an apparently criminal act doesn't always enable you to state categorically that someone is guilty of commiting a crime.
> 
> But I'm probably guilty of derailing again...



Ok. Getting away from the 'state of mind' aspect. What about if I see something happen and the jury simply doesn't believe that I saw it . Do I then have to believe I didn't see it?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 11, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I had to do a fair bit of digging to get to the initial comments, yeah, as most of those posted with that hashtag are now criticising the earlier ones. Some crazy stuff, for sure.


 
Indeed - some of the newer posters are calling the 'penis=rapist' man-haters batshit crazy, which is quite correct, and indeed quite mild considering the offensive shit some of them have come out with.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:
			
		

> I argue that anonymity should apply to both sides, with only very rare exceptions like which were discussed above.  However, I don't agree that anonymity for defendants offends against the principle of justice being seen to be done, as by that logic, surely the complainant having anonymity equally offends as it distorts the principle of justice?
> 
> Of course cases could be reported after conviction (hence justice seen to be done), which could result in further cases being brought to the attention of the police.  But the current situation creates a distorted sense of justice, in that one side can have absolute anonymity, but the other is fed to the wolves of public opprobrium, irrespective of whether they are convicted or acquitted.



In some ways the idea of victim anonymity is contrary to the principles of open justice. But it's a necessary evil, without which there'd be very few cases coming to court. 

And there's no equivalent practical argument in favour of defendant anonymity. Naming defendants prompts others to report crimes; naming victims doesn't.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> Of course not, but that's a very different situation. You would be in possession of the certain knowledge that I committed the crime. That's completely different to others speculating that I did it in the absence of that knowledge.



I would be reaching a conclusion, independently of the jury, based upon my assessment of the evidence.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Procedures were already changed more than 10 years ago, to make it easier for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence.
> Unfortunately, as the application of those changes is policed by the "front-line" of the criminal justice system - the judges and lawyers, they're as often attended to in their breach as in their observance, so minors still get harrassed by defence counsel, and judges and juries still make presumptions based on class, gender and race.



Nevertheless,  there's still much more that could be done.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> The "presumption of innocence conferred by a 'not guilty' verdict" (as Spymaster put it) is, we should remember, technical (in that it effectively says this person was found not guilty by dint of evidence or lack of evidence presented). It's not absolving of a defendant's character in the way that some people assume.
> It's also different to the presumption of innocence granted to all defendants during legal proceedings, which is a mechanism that attempts to ensure a degree of "neutrality" in the deliberations of the jury and (as far as possible) the machinations of the criminal justice system.
> 
> I don't mind either presumption of innocence, just as long as they're not taken to mean anything other than the above.



I agree.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Wtf do you mean "strawman"?
> 
> That's exactly what you said!
> 
> Christ almighty, read what you're posting.



I know what I posted. It's a strawman because you're assuming I'd be 'less sad' if he was convicted.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's posting post-11pm. The red wine won't *let* him read your posts properly!



That explains his aggression too then.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> I'm undecided on anonymity.
> 
> As far as the principle of justice being seen to be done, shouldn't that necessitate that both accused and accuser are named?
> 
> ...



What if the 'MO' is the same, and the victims have not spoken? Isn't that powerful circumstantial evidence? Should it be excluded?


----------



## andysays (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> Ok. Getting away from the 'state of mind' aspect. What about if I see something happen and the jury simply doesn't believe that I saw it . Do I then have to believe I didn't see it?



As I understand the way it works, the jury come up with a verdict, without going into details on how they arrived at it, so you don't know whether they believe that you saw it or not.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 11, 2013)

Onket said:


> And his brother is still your friend?!


To be fair, the unaccused friend is very different from his somewhat more misguided (not to mention accused etc) brother.  

I won't claim that it was easy for anyone who knew both brothers, but most people managed to get their heads around accepting that an accident of birth does not make you accountable for what your brother does.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

andysays said:


> As I understand the way it works, the jury come up with a verdict, without going into details on how they arrived at it, so you don't know whether they believe that you saw it or not.



But, in a case which can only turn on the question of whose account the jury believes, such that an acquittal necessarily implies that the jury  didn't believe that witness, should he then believe that he didn't see what he saw?


----------



## andysays (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> But, in a case which can only turn on the question of whose account the jury believes, such that an acquittal necessarily implies that the jury  didn't believe that witness, should he then believe that he didn't see what he saw?



No, but maybe he (wasn't it you a minute ago?) should consider whether it really meant what he/you thought it meant.

I don't believe that the (socially constructed) meaning of an event is equivalent to or immediately deducible from an "objective" description of that event, if indeed such a thing is possible, but we seem to be straying ever further away from the original theme of this thread...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> I would be reaching a conclusion, independently of the jury, based upon my assessment of the evidence.



Oh come on!

You advanced a scenario in which you (and you alone) saw me commit a crime but failed to convince a jury of my guilt.

In this hypothetical situation, why should anyone else accept your evidence?

The jury didn't buy it. Why?

They thought you were mistaken/prejudiced/lying ... etc.

OR .... _they_ were bent/prejudiced/stupid ... etc.

With certain caveats most of us would exclude the latter, so we're in a situation where I'm going to walk from a crime that I _did_ commit. That _does_ happen ... outstanding defence brief; shite prosecution, whatever. Shit situation, but outline a better system and I'm all ears.

Let me reverse the scenario.

What if you _didn't_ see me commit the crime but perjured yourself and said you did because you're a bigot, and I'm black/white/gay/female/male ... etc.

So would you rather see an innocent defendant jailed than a guilty one walk?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> Ok. Getting away from the 'state of mind' aspect. What about if I see something happen and the jury simply doesn't believe that I saw it . Do I then have to believe I didn't see it?



You seem to be otherwise too smart to posit such a ridiculous notion.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> In some ways the idea of victim anonymity is contrary to the principles of open justice. But it's a necessary evil, without which there'd be very few cases coming to court.
> 
> Naming defendants prompts others to report crimes; naming victims doesn't.



Once again, I'm not entirely in disagreement with you, but naming defendants prompts other _alleged_ victims to report _alleged_ crimes, which are then used to give weight to the prosecution of an _alleged_ offence.

That's even less than circumstantial given that at that point the allegations are unproven.



> And there's no equivalent practical argument in favour of defendant anonymity.



Except that HE MAY NOT BE GUILTY.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> That explains his aggression too then.



I apologise for that. I'm an hour ahead of you lot at the moment so the sauce did come into play, but I still think you need a rethink.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Once again, I'm not entirely in disagreement with you, but naming defendants prompts other _alleged_ victims to report _alleged_ crimes, which are then used to give weight to the prosecution of an _alleged_ offence.



And what possible motive would loads of _alleged_ victims have in coming forward? That's the bit that doesn't make much sense. Obviously there's the odd loon (like the people who call the police whenever an appeal for witnesses is made) but they will largely be weeded out by the police. But other than that, I can't really see why sane people would pretend that they were assaulted by someone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> And what possible motive would loads of _alleged_ victims have in coming forward? That's the bit that doesn't make much sense. Obviously there's the odd loon (like the people who call the police whenever an appeal for witnesses is made) but they will largely be weeded out by the police. But other than that, I can't really see why sane people would pretend that they were assaulted by someone.


so you're saying that all the women who have made a false allegation of rape should not be in prison or otherwise subject to the criminal justice system as they are in fact in your considered judgement mentally ill. either that or you've no imagination.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> What if the 'MO' is the same, and the victims have not spoken? Isn't that powerful circumstantial evidence? Should it be excluded?



It's difficult.

What if I'm being done for nicking a car which I didn't, and several other people who don't like me (or have sympathies with my alleged victim), falsely say that I nicked their cars too ....

Should their evidence be _included_?

At this point _I haven't been proven to have stolen any cars at all._


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> It's difficult.
> 
> What if I'm being done for nicking a car which I didn't, and several other people who don't like me, falsely say that I nicked their cars too ....
> 
> At this point _I haven't been proven to have stolen any cars at all._


you took mine too.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're saying that all the women who have made a false allegation of rape should not be in prison or otherwise subject to the criminal justice system as they are in fact in your considered judgement mentally ill. either that or you've no imagination.


No, I don't think that's what I said. I was talking about cases where the release of the defendant's name encourages other women to come forward.  How many women have been convicted of false allegations of rape in situations where they've come forward once the defendant's name has been released? 

I don't know the stats. I'm sure you do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> No, I don't think that's what I said. I was talking about cases where the release of the defendant's name encourages other women to come forward.  How many women have been convicted of false allegations of rape in situations where they've come forward once the defendant's name has been released?
> 
> I don't know the stats. I'm sure you do.






			
				trashpony said:
			
		

> I can't really see why sane people would pretend that they were assaulted by someone.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


Nice, taking my sentence out of context.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> And what possible motive would loads of _alleged_ victims have in coming forward? That's the bit that doesn't make much sense.



I agree. And this is the counterweight to the argument that I've put forward above.

Why would a woman accuse a man of rape in order to bolster _another_ woman's prosecution of the same man, in the full knowledge that she too will be put through the "legal mill"?

It's why I'm undecided, but as a legal principle I think it's even more shaky than disclosing _prior convictions_ to a jury before deliberations, which in many cases we don't do.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Nice, taking my sentence out of context.


It wasn't unreasonable.


----------



## cesare (Sep 11, 2013)

-------, fair play. Fuck knows why the CPS ran with it though.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

TopCat said:


> It wasn't unreasonable.


Next time I'll make sure I check my phrasing more carefully to ensure people don't get the wrong end of the stick. Obviously it's naive of me to assume that one sentence follows on from the former one in a paragraph


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> It's difficult.
> 
> What if I'm being done for nicking a car which I didn't, and several other people who don't like me (or have sympathies with my alleged victim), falsely say that I nicked their cars too ....
> 
> ...



Should any false evidence be included?!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

> Fuck knows why the CPS ran with it though.



Agreed.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> You seem to be otherwise too smart to posit such a ridiculous notion.



That's the logical conclusion of his position. The fact that it is ridiculous says more about that position.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> Should any false evidence be included?!



 I was expecting to get called on that!

I'm going for a wander down the street to pick up a few more Chimay's, but will return.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> Oh come on!
> 
> You advanced a scenario in which you (and you alone) saw me commit a crime but failed to convince a jury of my guilt.
> 
> ...



You're conflating two issues. That of individuals reaching their own conclusion which differs from that of a jury; and that of a juries convicting or acquitting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Fuck knows why the CPS ran with it though.


After reading a bit about it, that's my thought, too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Obviously there's the odd loon (like the people who call the police whenever an appeal for witnesses is made) but they will largely be weeded out by the police. But other than that, I can't really see why sane people would pretend that they were assaulted by someone.


i don't see why you're making such a fuss about the previous sentence which i quoted above and which doesn't change the meaning in any way whatsoever. incidentally i agree that people who act as witnesses for the police are indeed loons, as i found when i was one. (gbh on squatters before you ask)


----------



## TopCat (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Next time I'll make sure I check my phrasing more carefully to ensure people don't get the wrong end of the stick. Obviously it's naive of me to assume that one sentence follows on from the former one in a paragraph


Not quoting the whole paragraph did not set you up at all.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't see why you're making such a fuss about the previous sentence which i quoted above and which doesn't change the meaning in any way whatsoever. incidentally i agree that people who act as witnesses for the police are indeed loons, as i found when i was one. (gbh on squatters before you ask)


Because you quoted it and rolled your eyes.  I was talking about it in the context of those people who make allegations once someone has been identified as was fairly clear from my paragraph. I don't vet every single fucking sentence I write on here - I'm tired. I'm sorry I wasn't crystal clear that the sentence followed on from the previous one. 

Are there any alleged victims who've been done for wrongful allegations in cases a defendent has been named? Do I need to clarify that question more, or is it clear what I mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Because you quoted it and rolled your eyes.  I was talking about it in the context of those people who make allegations once someone has been identified as was fairly clear from my paragraph. I don't vet every single fucking sentence I write on here - I'm tired. I'm sorry I wasn't crystal clear that the sentence followed on from the previous one.
> 
> Are there any alleged victims who've been done for wrongful allegations in cases a defendent has been named? Do I need to clarify that question more, or is it clear what I mean?


#383: how is it taken out of context? it's not - move on.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> #383: how is it taken out of context? it's not - move on.


Whatever. I'll leave you boys to it.


----------



## Hollis (Sep 11, 2013)

I'm wondering more along the lines of what can be done to  (a) reduce rape/sexual crime in the first place (b) create a system where victims have more confidence in the criminal justice system and (c) reduce the trauma of giving evidence/being cross-examined in court that will still uphold the rigour of court proceedings.

Also, where it comes down to 'one word against another', then I assume there are limitations to what the conviction rate can ever be?  Do other countries/systems deal with any of this more effectively?


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> ----, fair play.


Please remove that comment, Thanks.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Athos said:


> You're conflating two issues. That of individuals reaching their own conclusion which differs from that of a jury; and that of a juries convicting or acquitting.



No. You put forward a specific hypothetical:




			
				Athos said:
			
		

> I see you commit a crime; I give evidence that you did; you give evidence that you didn't; the jury prefers your version of events, and you are acquitted. Am I now to believe in your innocence?



To which I responded:

"Of course not", but:



> The jury didn't buy it. Why?
> 
> They thought you were mistaken/prejudiced/lying ... etc.
> 
> ...



Shouldn't you be addressing that?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Please remove that comment, Thanks.



My quote edited accordingly.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 11, 2013)

This is depressing all round really.

He's been found not guilty and that's the end of the matter.

In the balance of probabilities though, I find it far more likely that a powerful man has abused a young girl and got away with it than a young girl falsely accusing a powerful man in order to and get away with it.

Whoever lied has their conscience to live with.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> #383: how is it taken out of context? it's not - move on.



Stop it ffs.

She's stuck her head over a parapet here, made good points, and doesn't deserve a Nit-Pickmaning.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> He's been found not guilty and that's the end of the matter.


Except you then go on to say why you think the 'balance of probabilities' suggests he's guilty.

I'm getting fed up reminding people of the potential legal consequences of people posting up their none-too-informed personal _opinions_ on this particularly verdict. A verdict which was not guilty.

*words edited for clarity


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Except you then go on to say why you think the 'balance of probabilities' suggests he's guilty.
> 
> I'm getting fed up reminding people of the potential legal consequences of people posting up their _opinions_ on this verdict.



Suggesting a balance of probabilities doesn't suggest guilt. It suggests a balance of probabilitities for this type of crime.

And I don't think you're the right person to lecture folk on this given how spectacularly you got the Savile stuff wrong.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> He got off, fair play. Fuck knows why the CPS ran with it though.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/michael-le-vell-cps-witch-hunt-prosecution



> What most commentators overlook is that the word of the complainant is evidence. That evidence might be compelling or it might be weak, but it is evidence nonetheless. Truthful witnesses can be word-perfect and self-assured; they can also be inconsistent, shaking with nerves, giggling inappropriately, or suffer from imperfect recollection. A witness who is strong in interview may fall apart in the courtroom. It cannot, and must not, be the job of the CPS to take on the role of judge and jury, deciding in advance that a potentially credible witness should be disbelieved merely because there is no corroboratory evidence. To do otherwise would be to relinquish any responsibility for prosecuting child abuse, because the offence by its very nature is unlikely to take place in front of witnesses, and because it is not uncommon for it to come to light many years later.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> This is depressing all round really.
> 
> He's been found not guilty and that's the end of the matter.
> 
> ...



By all accounts she broke down several times giving evidence and gave a very graphic description of the abuse. So shes either a brilliant actor that can cry on cue or the abuse did occur.  We'll never know.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 11, 2013)

Srs q - are you allowed to say eg "in my opinion, I think he dunnit" - ie that's an opinion, nothing more? Just writing a thought down.

Rather than saying eg "he is guilty"

Clarification needed. Opinions are like arseholes etc


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> By all accounts she broke down several times giving evidence and gave a very graphic description of the abuse. So shes either a brilliant actor that can cry on cue or the abuse did occur.  We'll never know.



We never will. But he's innocent now so everyone can enjoy corra again.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 11, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Srs q - are you allowed to say eg "in my opinion, I think he dunnit" - ie that's an opinion, nothing more? Just writing a thought down.
> 
> Rather than saying eg "he is guilty"
> 
> Clarification needed. Opinions are like arseholes etc



Thats interesting-Id like to know the answer to that one too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Whatever. I'll leave you boys to it.


you complained of being taken out of context. then, when it's shown you're talking nonsense you try the old whatever line but it doesn't make you look superior. it's disappointing to see an often interesting poster floundering like you have beenhere


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 11, 2013)




----------



## Onket (Sep 11, 2013)

Greebo said:


> To be fair, the unaccused friend is very different from his somewhat more misguided (not to mention accused etc) brother.
> 
> I won't claim that it was easy for anyone who knew both brothers, but most people managed to get their heads around accepting that an accident of birth does not make you accountable for what your brother does.



Or might have done.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 11, 2013)

Onket said:


> Or might have done.


Balance of probability.  In that case VP was talking about, the accused man was found neither "guilty" nor "not guilty", the judge threw the case out on day one.


----------



## Athos (Sep 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> No. You put forward a specific hypothetical:
> 
> To which I responded:
> 
> ...



It's a non-point. I've alluded to the fact that it's better a guilty man walks than an innocent one convicted. Where does that leave us?


----------



## 8den (Sep 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> He got off, fair play. Fuck knows why the CPS ran with it though.



Because they fucking thought he did it. 

As a point of comparison about a decade ago I shot a piece of video footage at a RTS where 8 Irish Garda fucking wailed on protesters. There was no justification no defence they threw people on the ground and punched them repeatedly in the face, smashed them around the place. 

8 cops face assault charges and all 8 were aquitted. Not only was there video footage of them kicking the shit out of people, but in one case one copper even had to admit that he used excessive force. And yet the jury acquitted them. 

These cases cost me the better part of two years of my life. And as one cop who was clearly guilty of assault was acquitted, a gardai who was part of the prosecution team phoned me up and apologised and said "trials accusing police officers shouldn't be jury trials" Because people are more likely to believe the Gardai than a bunch of hippies, even if the Gardai is caught on camera committing assault. 

I think historic rape cases should not be handled by juries. As Le Vell's defence pointed out, there was no evidence of child porn on his computer, no forensic evidence, etc but there's no reason any of those things should have been found so thats not a defence. It's too complicated a issue for a lay jury, that being said judges need a damn sight more training before I'd let any judge handle a rape case.


----------



## mr steev (Sep 11, 2013)

8den said:


> Because they fucking thought he did it.



Because they thought there was a reasonable chance of conviction. without hearing the defence



8den said:


> I think historic rape cases should not be handled by juries. As Le Vell's defence pointed out, there was no evidence of child porn on his computer, no forensic evidence, etc but there's no reason any of those things should have been found so thats not a defence. It's too complicated a issue for a lay jury, that being said judges need a damn sight more training before I'd let any judge handle a rape case.



I sat on the jury for a historic rape and child sex abuse case. Whilst the deliberation was not easy I feel it was much fairer than leaving it to one person. I don't think it's too complicated an issue - the judge gives advice as the trial goes on.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 11, 2013)

As I read it...the jury acquitted Le Vell 'unanimously and promptly'.

There was little discussion, little argument.   In a case of child rape.  Unanimous.  Prompt.

*Before and during the case* I, although I didn't really pay attention to the case, was of the assumption that he probably did it...because of operation yewtree....because he was in tv...because he was around when some of this stuff was happening.....and also because I don't like coronation street or any other soaps and in a fucked up way because of that I'd be happy if he did it because fuck him.

I made no effort to seek out the evidence presented, it was just background.

Fact is he didn't do it.

And I'm looking at myself with shame.   Without paying attention I allowed myself to wish that he had done an unforgivable thing just so I could hate him for it...in the background....ignoring the obvious child-rape that would have happened had I been justified.


----------



## CRI (Sep 12, 2013)

(DISCLAIMER - this isn't to do with the specific case in question but a wider discussion of issues surrounding sexual assault cases generally, goddit?)

My neighbour was burgled a few years ago and she was pretty sure who did it.  Someone was tried but acquitted despite some forensic evidence and a witness statement from another neighbour who made a positive ID.  Even if the guy was found not guilty, it doesn't mean she was magically "unburgled" or suddenly, she was no longer a victim of crime. (Geez, you know I must have just imagined my window was broken, tv stolen and all those nightmares and panic attacks will all just disappear now, hooray!)  After the verdict, no one called her a liar or a fantacist, suggested she had wasted police time or should be prosecuted for false allegations.  But, accusations like this get leveled at rape victims all the time (sometimes, even after a guilty verdict - i.e. the tweets after the conviction of footballer Ched Evans.)

We tend to give benefit of a doubt to people when they say they've experienced crimes like robbery, assault, arson, ID theft, whatever, whether or not someone gets done for it.  We sympathise, we help, we care.  It seems it's only those who say they've been sexually assaulted who are routinely disbelieved, which is highly hypocritical in my view.  One woman I know told me even her friends and family "gently" tried to convince her that she wasn't raped - surely it was just a misunderstanding/he seems too nice a guy for that/maybe you dreamed it/etc.  It was like they couldn't cope with the idea she'd been raped.  Is that what it is?  Are we all just scared of thinking rape could be so common?  Would that remind us too much that we, or someone we love could be victims?  Could be perpetrators?   I dunno.

Another kind of related thing I don't get about rape and sexual assault cases - who has to prove what.

If I'm had up for benefit fraud, the onus is on ME to prove I genuinely believed I had a right to claim such and such (e.g. letter from Benefits Agency saying I was entitled, witness in a meeting where I was told by Agency staff to apply, etc.)  The case against me doesn't rest on the prosecution proving they informed me I couldn't have the money strongly/loudly/clearly/firmly enough.

Same goes with robbery.  The accused saying they thought the person gave them their lap top willingly won't cut it.  The victim proving they didn't give it freely isn't required for a conviction.

But, in sexual assault cases (where the defendant agrees sexual contact took place), that is what happens.  The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant *didn't* agree to sex.  Effectively, this means consent to have sex is presumed to exist *unless* the complainant and his or her counsel can prove it didn't.  

For consistency and fairness, surely the onus should be on the defendant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had the authority (i.e. consent of the other person) to have sex, providing whatever evidence is required to prove that.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> But, in a case which can only turn on the question of whose account the jury believes, such that an acquittal necessarily implies that the jury  didn't believe that witness, should he then believe that he didn't see what he saw?


We live in postmodern times and we have abandoned the notion of ultimate truth. A final objective version that represents what really happened. If we could ever achieve that privileged view of the world, perhaps that would make sense. But we can't. There is no objective truth, just a whole bunch of competing subjective ones. It probably seems unfair to be told that a judgement contradicts what you know, but in this stew of competing claims all we can do is make what sense we can of them. The judgement is an approximation to the truth.

Someone directly involved can say that it isn't the way things are and perhaps campaign for a different verdict, but our truth, the public truth, remains that faulty approximation.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2013)

editor said:


> Please remove that comment, Thanks.


I've edited as instructed. But please explain the basis for the instruction, as the comment was not libellous or derogatory. Thanks.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> We live in postmodern times and we have abandoned the notion of ultimate truth. A final objective version that represents what really happened. If we could ever achieve that privileged view of the world, perhaps that would make sense. But we can't. There is no objective truth, just a whole bunch of competing subjective ones. It probably seems unfair to be told that a judgement contradicts what you know, but in this stew of competing claims all we can do is make what sense we can of them. The judgement is an approximation to the truth.
> 
> Someone directly involved can say that it isn't the way things are and perhaps campaign for a different verdict, but our truth, the public truth, remains that faulty approximation.



Indeed.  Having abandoned the notion of one single truth, what's the issue with others believing a different truth from that accepted by the jury?


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> Indeed.  Having abandoned the notion of one single truth, what's the issue with others believing a different truth from that accepted by the jury?


I think because unless we have the sort of direct involvement you suggested before, the attempt to second guess the judgement is misplaced. It makes me think of the desperate confections conspiracy theorists work up and peddle enthusiastically over the Internet.

The point I was trying to make wasn't that instead of an objective truth, all we have left is a load of versions we can pick and choose from. It's that we agree on this best shot. An approximation to an accurate tale of events.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> I think because unless we have the sort of direct involvement you suggested before, the attempt to second guess the judgement is misplaced. It makes me think of the desperate confections conspiracy theorists work up and peddle enthusiastically over the Internet.
> 
> The point I was trying to make wasn't that instead of an objective truth, all we have left is a load of versions we can pick and choose from. It's that we agree on this best shot. An approximation to an accurate tale of events.


But the point of a jury verdict isn't to establish the truth, it to establish whether or not guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> But the point of a jury verdict isn't to establish the truth, it to establish whether or not guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.


An approximation, our best shot at.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> An approximation, our best shot at.



A jury's best shot at estalishing hether someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  Not my best shot of establishing the truth.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> A jury's best shot at estalishing hether someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  Not my best shot of establishing the truth.


If you're intimately involved, you can reach a conclusion, otherwise we accept the result of the process.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2013)

[quote="8den, post: 12544099, member: 





> Because they fucking thought he did it.



you cant be sure of that . There could well have been a number of issues at play . Such as a fear of being seen to be lenient on a well liked household name . Or simply that the testimony met a threshold were a conviction was a possibility but by no means a certainty. Ive seen plenty of instances were trials have been brought on quite spurious grounds .


> As a point of comparison about a decade ago I shot a piece of video footage at a RTS where 8 Irish Garda fucking wailed on protesters. There was no justification no defence they threw people on the ground and punched them repeatedly in the face, smashed them around the place.
> 
> 8 cops face assault charges and all 8 were aquitted. Not only was there video footage of them kicking the shit out of people, but in one case one copper even had to admit that he used excessive force. And yet the jury acquitted them.
> 
> These cases cost me the better part of two years of my life. And as one cop who was clearly guilty of assault was acquitted, a gardai who was part of the prosecution team phoned me up and apologised and said "trials accusing police officers shouldn't be jury trials" Because people are more likely to believe the Gardai than a bunch of hippies, even if the Gardai is caught on camera committing assault.



I dont think thats at all a valid comparison . Im assuming your talking about the disgraceful scenes surrounding the Dublin Reclaim the streets garda pogrom..for want of a better word . In particular Robocops prolonged assault on a peaceful, terrified and defenceless young girl as she lay on the ground .



The reason they were aquitted are pertaining to issues specifically related to the Irish state and the citizens relationship with it . Namely a knowlege that the state itself is endemically corrupt and either a fear of that corruption or an identification with it for political purposes . Jurors either specifically identifying with and supporting the states criminality or fear of retribution if they sent a garda down for upholding the states power over anarchist protestors . Because the gardai certainly will come after you if you cross them . They are largely unaccountable and they *will* get away with it, and everyone knows that . The same issues werent remotely at play in Le Vells trial . The British public arent terrified of Kevin Webster .
And furthermore I can assure you as someone whos sat through numerous no jury trials in the Dublin Special Criminal court over the last 15 years the corruption there is every bit as bad . If not worse . The assumptions your making about the Irish judiciary overlook the glaring corruption they collude in . At a no jury trial the judges would simply rule that video evidence was inadmissable on a legal technicality, prevent themselves from looking at it and fuck off to the bar .
Other gardai have been convicted of assault based on cctv evidence , the difference being there was no political context and the force itself was supplying the footage and had clearly went after a few of its own . Therefore jurors given the distinct impression the powers that be were fine with the prosecutions .


> I think historic rape cases should not be handled by juries. As Le Vell's defence pointed out, there was no evidence of child porn on his computer, no forensic evidence, etc but there's no reason any of those things should have been found so thats not a defence. It's too complicated a issue for a lay jury, that being said judges need a damn sight more training before I'd let any judge handle a rape case.



With respect unless you sat through it yourself your only aware of a very selective reportage by the media. Just as I am . However what wasnt found either was any evidence of hospital treatment or injury . Many people would find it difficult to believe a 6 year old could be repeatedly raped by a drunken adult and not suffer some noticable injury . That is a defence . The absence of apparently any corroborating evidence where one would normally expect it lends weight to a legal defence .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> As I read it...the jury acquitted Le Vell 'unanimously and promptly'.
> 
> There was little discussion, little argument.   In a case of child rape.  Unanimous.  Prompt.
> 
> ...



Im in exactly the same boat as yourself . I had him down as probably guilty, paid little attention but I reckoned most celebrity types are dodgy and the rest . Hate soaps in particular so im prejudiced .The juries unanimity and speed made me a bit ashamed and worried about my prejudices . They didnt seem to have any doubts about his innocence at all .


----------



## Batboy (Sep 12, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> As I read it...the jury acquitted Le Vell 'unanimously and promptly'.
> 
> There was little discussion, little argument.   In a case of child rape.  Unanimous.  Prompt.
> 
> ...



I find this is often the case with these types of crimes, a majority of the public assume that because he's been charged he must be guilty. Best to remember the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

The police of late announce the accused (certainly celebrities) in child abuse cases through the media in a hope to fish out more victims and thus ensure a big and easy conviction. All thanks to cigar smoking cunt Saville.

Clearly the police have been successful (think Stuart Hall), so this begs the question 'why the fuck did the crown prosecution proceed with case?'

Kevin Le Vell is lucky he is a celebrity as he will be looked upon sympathetically by both the media and the public. Had he been Joe Bloggs well mud sticks better. I will always remember how the media especially The Sun treated wrongly imprisoned honey trap victim Colin Stag.

I am intrigued as to the likely outcome of Max Clifford case, because if he is found innocent or charges dropped, the compensation cost will run into millions. 

The CPS can be such fuckwits.


----------



## Batboy (Sep 12, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> only by the courts



Bang on, as these threads and the media always prove.

Innocent until proven guilty is only largely considered by the courts. 
Most people assume that because he/she's been charged then they must be guilty. Read through this thread, you can see the undertones of this.

People do not consider that:
A) CPS can fuck up
B) Police can lie
C) The victim can lie
D) The witnesses can lie
E) Expert witnesses can be total fuckwits

Hell even the evidence can lie. This is why we must never have the death penalty, you cannot dig up the wrongly convicted and get their lungs reworking.

Forums like Urban are really under pressure to ensure that libellous comments  and accusations are not posted and against a backdrop of dopey posters who love a good nonce story, it must be a nightmare to police and protect from the lawyers.

Innocent until proven guilty, don't forget it!


----------



## Zabo (Sep 12, 2013)

The CPS frequently undermine the notion of 'Innocent until proven guilty.  They argue that giving maximum publicity to a person charged may result in other 'victims' coming forward. As such they imply there is an element of guilt. Even if they deny it, previous cases have shown that an innocent person charged is often tainted. Some members of the press and public are content to determine guilt with nothing more than a charge. Why bother with courts?

This member notes in the cases where the CPS secure a conviction they can frequently be seen giving a post trial press conference in somewhat restrained jubilant tones. I noted their absence at the Le Vell conference. Mea culpa?

I would suggest that the CPS spend whatever time they use appealing to the baseness of the press and public by concentrating on implementing justice that is seen to be just. Justice should have no role in the P.R. Circus.


----------



## Serotonin (Sep 12, 2013)

Having just supported a patient through the process of reporting incidents of historical abuse and seeing how traumatic and hard it was for her and then to see it thrown out by the CPS because essentially it's almost impossible to prove something that happened nearly 40 years ago, it makes it very hard for me to not look at this case without a certain degree of bias. The police were quick to reassure my patient her abuser seemed like a nice man now who is now living a different lifestyle. Is he innocent? Is she a liar? I know what I believe but the whole process of dealing with historic abuse is very difficult and filled with pitfalls. As one of the specialist cops said to me at the start of the process, they believe its very rare that people make up historic abuse allegations. The difficulty is proving it beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Grandma Death (Sep 12, 2013)

The 


Serotonin said:


> Having just supported a patient through the process of reporting incidents of historical abuse and seeing how traumatic and hard it was for her and then to see it thrown out by the CPS because essentially it's almost impossible to prove something that happened nearly 40 years ago, it makes it very hard for me to not look at this case without a certain degree of bias. The police were quick to reassure my patient her abuser seemed like a nice man now who is now living a different lifestyle. Is he innocent? Is she a liar? I know what I believe but the whole process of dealing with historic abuse is very difficult and filled with pitfalls. As one of the specialist cops said to me at the start of the process, they believe its very rare that people make up historic abuse allegations. The difficulty is proving it beyond reasonable doubt.



My cousin was the victim of an attempted rape by a complete stranger. Fortunately for her there were police in the area and they were quick to respond when a neighbour saw what was happening. She found the judicial process incredibly traumatic despite it being an 'open and closed' case. She wasn't even cross examined in the witness box either. 
I cannot imagine what it's like for someone who has been raped or abused.


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> We never will. But he's innocent now so everyone can enjoy corra again.


Doubt he will be back on that,or TV in general, as mentioned mud sticks.


----------



## Athos (Sep 12, 2013)

white rabbit said:
			
		

> If you're intimately involved, you can reach a conclusion, otherwise we accept the result of the process.



We have no choice but to accept the verdict, from a legal perspective. But, as this thread demonstrates, people will not defer their own opinions to those of the court. And, logically speaking, there's no reason why they should. Not least of all because they are likely to be judging things to a different standard of proof.  That means that there's no inconsistency between a member of the public thinking he probably did what he was accused and a jury not being convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did.  Though, as I have already said, I don't think the evidence suggests that Le Vell probably did what he was accused of.


----------



## mr steev (Sep 12, 2013)

CRI said:


> Same goes with robbery.  The accused saying they thought the person gave them their lap top willingly won't cut it.  The victim proving they didn't give it freely isn't required for a conviction.



I'm not sure that's true. If I rang the police to say my laptop had been stolen they would first ask me how. If I then said so-and-so took it, they would want details.  Just saying they have it and it's mine wouldn't be enough for them to get involved imo.



CRI said:


> For consistency and fairness, surely the onus should be on the defendant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had the authority (i.e. consent of the other person) to have sex, providing whatever evidence is required to prove that.



Presumed guilty? 

and particularly in historic cases how is that going to be proven?


----------



## CRI (Sep 12, 2013)

mr steev said:


> I'm not sure that's true. If I rang the police to say my laptop had been stolen they would first ask me how. If I then said so-and-so took it, they would want details.  Just saying they have it and it's mine wouldn't be enough for them to get involved imo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm talking about cases where the defendant doesn't deny that sexual contact took place and/or where there is forensic evidence that sexual contact took place.  That might not be so in historical cases (which as Serotonin says, are rarely successful prosecution-wise due to lack of corroborating evidence.)

So, if the defendant acknowledges sexual contact took place, shouldn't the onus be on them to prove that they had consent from the other person to have sex with them?  It's no more "presumed guilty" than a person having to prove they had the authority to claim a certain benefit, or approval of the boss to transfer company funds into their own account, or to take an item from a shop because they believed it to be a free gift, etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2013)

CRI said:


> I'm talking about cases where the defendant doesn't deny that sexual contact took place and/or where there is forensic evidence that sexual contact took place.  That might not be so in historical cases (which as Serotonin says, are rarely successful prosecution-wise due to lack of corroborating evidence.)
> 
> So, if the defendant acknowledges sexual contact took place, shouldn't the onus be on them to prove that they had consent from the other person to have sex with them?  It's no more "presumed guilty" than a person having to prove they had the authority to claim a certain benefit, or approval of the boss to transfer company funds into their own account, or to take an item from a shop because they believed it to be a free gift, etc.


What form is this proof going to take? A notarised signed consent form?


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Im in exactly the same boat as yourself . I had him down as probably guilty, paid little attention but I reckoned most celebrity types are dodgy and the rest . Hate soaps in particular so im prejudiced .The juries unanimity and speed made me a bit ashamed and worried about my prejudices . They didnt seem to have any doubts about his innocence at all .



They debilitated for five hours, thats not speed.


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 12, 2013)

CRI said:


> So, if the defendant acknowledges sexual contact took place, shouldn't the onus be on them to prove that they had consent from the other person to have sex with them?  It's no more "presumed guilty" than a person having to prove they had the authority to claim a certain benefit, or approval of the boss to transfer company funds into their own account, or to take an item from a shop because they believed it to be a free gift, etc.



How can they 'prove consent'? In the examples you've outlined it is far easier to obtain authority prior to the act - how do you do that in the case of sex?  Sign a document? What about when you're both pissed and have an impromptu session?  How do you prove someone consented?  How do you prove that you didn't consent if there is no evidence of force?


----------



## mr steev (Sep 12, 2013)

CRI said:


> So, if the defendant acknowledges sexual contact took place, shouldn't the onus be on them to prove that they had consent from the other person to have sex with them?



But how could that be proved?


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> They debilitated for five hours, thats not speed.



Yes it is, it would have taken ages to read through the judges advice, compare notes and ensure all procedures where correctly followed - in a case such as this 5 hours is nothing.


----------



## mr steev (Sep 12, 2013)

Also it could only take one juror not to be convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt' on one point. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were all unsure


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2013)

> I dont think thats at all a valid comparison .



It's the only comparison I have, the six trials I was a witness at are the sum total of my experience with the criminal justice system (sans a driving offence)



> Im assuming your talking about the disgraceful scenes surrounding the Dublin Reclaim the streets garda pogrom..for want of a better word .



Pogrom is a stupid word in this instance. I have no doubt that this was a number of thick, violent ill trained officers who for want of a better word, lost their heads. As part of my experience I worked with what would become the core of the Garda complaints bureau, many officers were completely outraged by the behaviour of these thugs, and wanted criminal proceeding to work as to not tarnish the rest of the force. 



> In particular Robocops prolonged assault on a peaceful, terrified and defenceless young girl as she lay on the ground .



Indeed, and some of what I've been told about his character out of uniform doesn't paint him in the best of light. 



> The reason they were aquitted are pertaining to issues specifically related to the Irish state and the citizens relationship with it . Namely a knowlege that the state itself is endemically corrupt and either a fear of that corruption or an identification with it for political purposes . Jurors either specifically identifying with and supporting the states criminality or fear of retribution if they sent a garda down for upholding the states power over anarchist protestors . Because the gardai certainly will come after you if you cross them . They are largely unaccountable and they *will* get away with it, and everyone knows that . The same issues werent remotely at play in Le Vells trial . The British public arent terrified of Kevin Webster .



Nope again, I was there for all the cases, including jury selection. All it took to get a acquittal was to ensure there were a couple of white male middle class PD voter types on the jury. 



> And furthermore I can assure you as someone whos sat through numerous no jury trials in the Dublin Special Criminal court over the last 15 years the corruption there is every bit as bad . If not worse . The assumptions your making about the Irish judiciary overlook the glaring corruption they collude in . At a no jury trial the judges would simply rule that video evidence was inadmissable on a legal technicality,
> prevent themselves from looking at it and fuck off to the bar .



Respectfully as the guy who shot the video evidence, my entire presence in the court was to rule the video evidence as admissible.

So telling me you can assure me about what would and wouldnt happen about the video evidence in several court cases I was part of makes you seem a tad patronising. 

For instance in a early case the defence challenged my technical skills (in what would not be the most bizarre challenge on the video evidence) and in a nice "My cousin Vinnie" moment I could rattle off the fact that not only was I qualified with both a degree and diploma in film and video production but I had a extensive technical career in the subject. This occured in camera without the jury present, and when the video evidence was ruled admissible the judge made a point of getting me to list off my professional credentials for the jury.   

In every case the defence tried to get the video evidence chucked out, and in every case it was ruled in. 



> Other gardai have been convicted of assault based on cctv evidence , the difference being there was no political context and the force itself was supplying the footage and had clearly went after a few of its own . Therefore jurors given the distinct impression the powers that be were fine with the prosecutions .



It really takes a special kind of arrogance to lecture someone who was involved in the case as to what happened in the case.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

Serotonin said:


> . As one of the specialist cops said to me at the start of the process, they believe its very rare that people make up historic abuse allegations. The difficulty is proving it beyond reasonable doubt.


That 'rarity' doesn't mean anything at all though _in this particular case._


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> They debilitated for five hours, thats not speed.


From t'internet:
The length is often dependent on the jury instructions. The judge may tell the jury to decide whether, say, 15 different things are true. And if they are all true, then they should vote to convict, and if not, to acquit. The jury can spend some time deliberating each of the points that the judge instructs them to talk about.


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2013)

.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> From t'internet:
> The length is often dependent on the jury instructions. The judge may tell the jury to decide whether, say, 15 different things are true. And if they are all true, then they should vote to convict, and if not, to acquit. The jury can spend some time deliberating each of the points that the judge instructs them to talk about.



We don't know, quite right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> Nevertheless,  there's still much more that could be done.



I absolutely agree.
My point is that unless you legislate penalties for non-adherence, every cheapjack shyster will continue to use the abusive tactics they learned during their pupillage, because they work (insofar as they often dismay and upset the witness enough for the witness to go to pieces and contradict themselves).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> That explains his aggression too then.



Nah, that's explained by the small penis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Oh come on!
> 
> You advanced a scenario in which you (and you alone) saw me commit a crime but failed to convince a jury of my guilt.
> 
> ...




I can give you one factor that causes me extreme disquiet every time I see it emerge during a case, and this one is no exception.
Le Vell's brief made much of the lack of consistency to the evidence the complainant gave.  What doesn't get mentioned is that evidential consistency from memory *isn't* consistent - it *can't* be, because memory isn't a recording device, it's associative.
And guess what?  Trauma causes *dissociation* - to be precise, peri-traumatic dissociation, a fairly well-researched phenomenon.  Unfortunately, because producing "expert witnesses" to testify on memory and trauma is in the gift of the judge, and because "expert witnesses" can be seen by the jury (with a little assistance from the defence) as an attempt to shift the goalposts, prosecutors are loath to employ them in the first place.

All of which is to the detriment of Justice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

trashpony said:


> And what possible motive would loads of _alleged_ victims have in coming forward? That's the bit that doesn't make much sense. Obviously there's the odd loon (like the people who call the police whenever an appeal for witnesses is made) but they will largely be weeded out by the police. But other than that, I can't really see why sane people would pretend that they were assaulted by someone.



Nowadays the main "reason" given (by the media, anyway) is "compensation culture".  Apparently most people are lying, in the hope of scoring some compo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/michael-le-vell-cps-witch-hunt-prosecution



The nature of memory is taken by laymen (including judges and lawyers) to be something VERY different to what it actually is, which is why defence "demolitions" of witnesses based on non-perfect linear recall pisses me off so badly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> By all accounts she broke down several times giving evidence and gave a very graphic description of the abuse. So shes either a brilliant actor that can cry on cue or the abuse did occur.  We'll never know.



Or, in the interests of fairness, that she *believes* that the abuse occurred.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> Because they fucking thought he did it.
> 
> As a point of comparison about a decade ago I shot a piece of video footage at a RTS where 8 Irish Garda fucking wailed on protesters. There was no justification no defence they threw people on the ground and punched them repeatedly in the face, smashed them around the place.
> 
> ...



I don't agree that it's too complicated.
Most inquisitorial criminal justice systems have a better "score" on rape than adversarial systems do, and this is partly attributable to the fact that it's incumbent on the inquisitorial system to investigate "from all sides", which generally includes sourcing expert/professional information on *any* aspect of a case that warrants it.  So, for example, a judge in Germany might have witness evidence parsed by someone skilled in content analysis, to see if any ambiguities and contradictions emerge from the testimony of various parties to the case, after which the amiguities and contradictions will be investigated, and the resulting information made available to all parties.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, that's explained by the small penis.



It was only small because it didn't get hard when you were sucking it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> ...please explain the basis for the instruction...



Authoritarianism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> It was only small because it didn't get hard when you were sucking it!



I didn't suck it.

I couldn't find it, even *with* the magnifying glass!


----------



## Serotonin (Sep 12, 2013)

editor said:


> That 'rarity' doesn't mean anything at all though _in this particular case._


So? I mentioned that a police officer specialising in such crimes said it was rare for these things to be lies. The majority of people I work with ( and indeed in the wider mental health community) have suffered some form of abuse, often sexual abuse in childhood and I've met very few who have succeeded in having the perpetrators come to justice for it. In the example I have about my patient I absolutely believe that she was raped and have no reason to not believe it was the man who she names that did it. It won't go to court because the CPS have stated there is not enough evidence and he will be found not guilty. Does that make him innocent of being a child abusing rapist? Le Velle has been found not guilty in a court of law in this case. That's pretty much all that can now be said About the incident. However I personally will not then assume it means the girl who accused him is a liar given my experience of working with victims of abuse and having seen how such accusations are dealt with by the CPS / criminal justice system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> They *debilitated* for five hours, thats not speed.



You make me sick!


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You make me sick!



Oh fuck off, I was up with a baby like 3 times last night.


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't agree that it's too complicated.
> Most inquisitorial criminal justice systems have a better "score" on rape than adversarial systems do, and this is partly attributable to the fact that it's incumbent on the inquisitorial system to investigate "from all sides", which generally includes sourcing expert/professional information on *any* aspect of a case that warrants it.  So, for example, a judge in Germany might have witness evidence parsed by someone skilled in content analysis, to see if any ambiguities and contradictions emerge from the testimony of various parties to the case, after which the amiguities and contradictions will be investigated, and the resulting information made available to all parties.



I'm not too familiar with the french/german inquisitorial system, but as I understand it is far superior to the adversarial system we're stuck with. I just don't see how you can completely change the entire concept of the legal system, particularly when so much Parliamentary system is made up of solicitors and barristers


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> Oh fuck off, I was up with a baby like 3 times last night.


 
Debilitating makes you sick was VPs point/pun.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> Oh fuck off, I was up with a baby like 3 times last night.



It's a hard life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> I'm not too familiar with the french/german inquisitorial system, but as I understand it is far superior to the adversarial system we're stuck with. I just don't see how you can completely change the entire concept of the legal system, particularly when so much Parliamentary system is made up of solicitors and barristers



And when so much of Parliament's own basis for being is moulded around adversarial strategy.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> Oh fuck off, I was up with a baby like 3 times last night.


And VP's got M.E. oneupmanship doesn't cut it.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 12, 2013)

mr steev said:


> Also it could only take one juror not to be convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt' on one point. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were all unsure



Not really: they would report that to the judge and it would then be up to the judge whether to accept a majority verdict or order a retrial or ask them to consider further.


----------



## mr steev (Sep 12, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Not really: they would report that to the judge and it would then be up to the judge whether to accept a majority verdict or order a retrial or ask them to consider further.



After how long though? When I was on jury service we deliberated for hours. Mostly about one point. I would presume it depends on how many charges need to be decided and how long the judge decides to give you.

To give a comparison (athough the opposite of what's been suggested here) we found the defendant guilty on all charges except one, which we couldn't agree on without 'reasonable doubt'. The long deliberation didn't mean that we couldn't decide on whether he was a serious sex offender though iyswim


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> Oh fuck off, I was up with a baby like 3 times last night.


it's generally the infant and not the parent who has trouble making themselves understood


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And when so much of Parliament's own basis for being is moulded around adversarial strategy.


and insults which would look juvenile in a playground


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> and insults which would look juvenile in a playground



Yep.  Most schoolkids would scorn our parliamentarians for being such immature sods.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep.  Most schoolkids would scorn our parliamentarians for being such immature sods.


cameron and millipede's exchanges make the famous 'your mum' insult look the product of genius


----------



## Smyz (Sep 12, 2013)

Serotonin said:


> So? I mentioned that a police officer specialising in such crimes said it was rare for these things to be lies. The majority of people I work with ( and indeed in the wider mental health community) have suffered some form of abuse, often sexual abuse in childhood and I've met very few who have succeeded in having the perpetrators come to justice for it. In the example I have about my patient I absolutely believe that she was raped and have no reason to not believe it was the man who she names that did it. It won't go to court because the CPS have stated there is not enough evidence and he will be found not guilty. Does that make him innocent of being a child abusing rapist? Le Velle has been found not guilty in a court of law in this case. That's pretty much all that can now be said About the incident. However I personally will not then assume it means the girl who accused him is a liar given my experience of working with victims of abuse and having seen how such accusations are dealt with by the CPS / criminal justice system.


In your view would it be better for this person to get their day in court even if the verdict was not guilty?

The very low conviction rate for reported rapes is down to CPS policy of only prosecuting cases where there is a realistic chance of conviction. This is to avoid clogging the courts with expensive cases which will go nowhere.

Should there be a different policy for sexual crimes? If we do prosecute more then the conviction rate in court would go down.

Is it worse to be called a liar by a jury or by the CPS?

I think more cases should be prosecuted regardless of the chance of conviction but we could probably do a lot more to make sure that victims feel believed even if there is little point putting the case to a jury.

Savile would have been caught decades ago if the police were cross-referencing complaints. 

Hall stopped lying and addmitted his crimes when several people who had never spoken to each other gave similar accounts of his behaviour.

Proactive cross-checking for previous complaints about the same person that never made it to court and keeping the case on file so that future complaints about the same person would trigger reopening the case. 

This would help get serial offenders off the streets much more quickly and help to make sure that victims with weak legal cases truly believe that they are believed rather than just being fobbed off.


----------



## rioted (Sep 12, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> and insults which would look juvenile in a playground


They'd look well grown-up on here, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

rioted said:


> They'd look well grown-up on here, though.


yeh but this is urban


----------



## laptop (Sep 12, 2013)

Smyz said:


> The very low conviction rate for reported rapes is down to CPS policy of only prosecuting cases where there is a realistic chance of conviction. This is to avoid clogging the courts with expensive cases which will go nowhere.



I thought the low conviction rate was partly due to the CPS bringing cases for rape that do not meet the better-than-evens-odds-on-conviction condition they apply to other offences?


----------



## Smyz (Sep 12, 2013)

laptop said:


> I thought the low conviction rate was partly due to the CPS bringing cases for rape that do not meet the better-than-evens-odds-on-conviction condition they apply to other offences?


As far as I know the conviction rate for cases that come to court is about the same as for other crimes. I don't know where to find the information to check.


----------



## laptop (Sep 12, 2013)

Smyz said:


> As far as I know the conviction rate for cases that come to court is about the same as for other crimes. I don't know where to find the information to check.



search *conviction rate rape uk* produces this:



> the conviction rate for rape prosecutions has continued to rise to the highest on record, from 58% in 2007/08 to 63% in 2012/13.
> ...
> The conviction rate for domestic violence has also increased by 1% this year and now stands at 74%, compared to 60% in 2005/06



Beware: source is government (CPS) press release: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_n...ion_rate_in_rape_and_domestic_violence_cases/

Ah, here we go:



> The conviction ratio fell in 2010 compared to 2009 following year-on-year increases since 2001.
> 
> In 2010 83 per cent of defendants proceeded against were convicted.
> A decrease of just under 0.5 percentage points compared to 2009 and an increase of nine percentage points compared to 2001.
> The conviction ratio varied from *55 per cent for sexual offences* to *91 per cent for drug offences*.



My bolding. Different years and (sexual offences -v- rape) likely explain different figures.

Source is, I believe, Office for National Statistics approved: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/217704/criminal-stats-quarterly-dec10.pdf


----------



## Serotonin (Sep 12, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Is it worse to be called a liar by a jury or by the CPS?



Thats a very good question but not one Im sure I have the answer to.


----------



## Smyz (Sep 12, 2013)

Serotonin said:


> Thats a very good question but not one Im sure I have the answer to.


I don't think there is an answer. For some the trauma of the court case would be worth avoiding if there was no conviction, for others the chance to publicly accuse their abuser would be important regardless of the verdict.

It would be good if we stopped calling people liars just because it is not possible to prove that they are telling the truth.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2013)

Smyz said:


> It would be good if we stopped calling people liars just because it is not possible to prove that they are telling the truth.



The CPS aren't calling anyone a liar in failing to bring a prosecution though are they?  They _may_ consider an accuser a liar, but their primary concern is whether or not they think there's sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully.


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2013)

Smyz said:


> It would be good if we stopped calling people liars just because it is not possible to prove that they are telling the truth.


Be good if we stopped casting aspersions on people who have just been acquitted in a court of law by a unanimous verdict too.


----------



## Thora (Sep 12, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> With respect unless you sat through it yourself your only aware of a very selective reportage by the media. Just as I am . However what wasnt found either was any evidence of hospital treatment or injury . Many people would find it difficult to believe a 6 year old could be repeatedly raped by a drunken adult and not suffer some noticable injury . That is a defence . The absence of apparently any corroborating evidence where one would normally expect it lends weight to a legal defence .


Would you necessarily expect hospital reports or treatment in a historic child abuse case though?  To give an example, most child sexual abuse occurs in family - it seems unlikely that those children would be taken anywhere for treatment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

Thora said:


> Would you necessarily expect hospital reports or treatment in a historic child abuse case though?  To give an example, most child sexual abuse occurs in family - it seems unlikely that those children would be taken anywhere for treatment.


victoria climbie was taken to hospital several times: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2062590.stm

baby p was also taken for medical attention a few times: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/11/baby-p-death

perhaps it's not so unlikely


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2013)

8den said:


> They debilitated for five hours, thats not speed.



yes it is..jesus

and juries deliberate, illnesses debilitate


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> yes it is..jesus
> 
> and juries deliberate, illnesses debilitate


we'll be putting the boot into 8den a few more times over the coming months for his mistake


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

Smyz said:


> I don't think there is an answer. For some the trauma of the court case would be worth avoiding if there was no conviction, for others the chance to publicly accuse their abuser would be important regardless of the verdict.
> 
> It would be good if we stopped calling people liars just because it is not possible to prove that they are telling the truth.


why would it be good?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> we'll be putting the boot into 8den a few more times over the coming months for his mistake



well he is actually guilty of committing  it

theres no need for us to discombobulate over it


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2013)

according to a filthy downmarket tabloid in my works canteen today the complainants mum is a satan worshipper, who likes being the centre of attention . And the CPS had originally decided not to proceed with the charges until Devil mum made a major fuss which coincided with a lot of this celebrity nonce stuff .
no idea if this is true, nor do I really care .

Feel like ive been peeking through someones curtains as it is . Cant stand a lot of this stuff .


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> according to a filthy downmarket tabloid in my works canteen today the complainants mum is a satan worshipper, who likes being the centre of attention . And the CPS had originally decided not to proceed with the charges until Devil mum made a major fuss which coincided with a lot of this celebrity nonce stuff .
> no idea if this is true, nor do I really care .
> 
> Feel like ive been peeking through someones curtains as it is . Cant stand a lot of this stuff .


all i can say is, you've been peeking through the wrong curtains if that's how you feel


----------



## existentialist (Sep 12, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> according to a filthy downmarket tabloid in my works canteen today the complainants mum is a satan worshipper, who likes being the centre of attention . And the CPS had originally decided not to proceed with the charges until Devil mum made a major fuss which coincided with a lot of this celebrity nonce stuff .
> no idea if this is true, nor do I really care .
> 
> Feel like ive been peeking through someones curtains as it is . Cant stand a lot of this stuff .


Ugh. Evil nasty tabloid triumphalism: let's rake muck on the complainant now.

There is little in this country - with the possible exception of most of the Cabinet - which I despise more than our gutter press.


----------



## Gingerman (Sep 12, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Ugh. Evil nasty tabloid triumphalism: let's rake muck on the complainant now.
> 
> There is little in this country - with the possible exception of most of the Cabinet - which I despise more than our gutter press.


The tabs are falling over themselves sympathising with Le Vell,course if he was foungd guilty he'd get the full 'sex beast' treatment off them,hypriticial cunts the lot of them....


----------



## ska invita (Sep 13, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> The tabs are falling over themselves sympathising with Le Vell...


i did get that impression from glancing at the front pages - i wonder why - the bloke still cheats on his wife, gets pissed and stumbles into little girls beds, hardly a role model...maybe that is a role model for some of these journos, who knows. Its certainly not that they feel guilty about their role in reporting the case - they're incapable of feeling guilt.

I guess it drags out the story and keeps papers selling is all


----------



## Batboy (Sep 13, 2013)

Athos said:


> We have no choice but to accept the verdict, from a legal perspective. But, as this thread demonstrates, people will not defer their own opinions to those of the court. And, logically speaking, there's no reason why they should. Not least of all because they are likely to be judging things to a different standard of proof.  That means that there's no inconsistency between a member of the public thinking he probably did what he was accused and a jury not being convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did.  Though, as I have already said, I don't think the evidence suggests that Le Vell probably did what he was accused of.





That's a statement that simply endorses my previous comments about how we mostly do not take on board the ethos of *innocent until proven guilty*. Joe Bloggs (and that includes me, you and everyone else posting on here) have no idea what really went on. We do not have full evidence other than what we read/hear in media/Internet and are not privy to it in the way the Jury are, and that's the whole point, even you are making an opinion/judgement without being in the jury. It is wholly illogical and unintelligent to form a judgement when not privy to full facts. Its just making gossip based upon gossip we get from the media or from our mates down the pub, "oh yeah I reckon he did it, he looks dodgy etc".

People on the whole love a good gossip and love a 'hanging' especially when 'nonce ' cases surface and a cee...leb..rity is involved, it's some kind of morbid curiosity like slowing down on the motorway to look at the crash on the other side. Even the police get wrapped up into the psychology of this, especially when famous people are involved and as a result the police make stupid decisions one way or the other.

I always remember the paradox/irony of the expert witness in _munchausen by proxy_ cases who used to walk down the street looking at people saying "she/he has munchausen by proxy". He reckoned he could just tell by looking at them, several well publicised cases of cot death were miscarriages of justice thanks to him. On Internet forums many people think they just know if someone is guilty or not. Its the same mode of thinking.

Now the shitbag Sun Newspaper have turned their vitriol onto the accuser(they dont have an offender to demonise and hang) so we can further fuel our morbid curiosity and wank over it. This case just throws up the worst of human stupidity.

Right... I'm off to the 'how many times a month do you metaphorically masterbate thread'.... .


----------



## gabi (Sep 13, 2013)

ska invita said:


> gets pissed and stumbles into little girls beds,



Havent really been following this story closely, but is that actually true? I thought the 'victim' was found to be unreliable.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 13, 2013)

gabi said:


> Havent really been following this story closely, but is that actually true? I thought the 'victim' was found to be unreliable.


Ugh.

The victim's evidence did not secure a conviction. That's not the same as being unreliable.

And Le Vell admitted to drunkenly stumbling into her bed, IIRC.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2013)

existentialist said:


> And Le Vell admitted to drunkenly stumbling into her bed, IIRC.



"Onto" her bed I think it was.

And falling onto a sleeping kids bed whilst hammered makes him a fucking stupid pisshead. Not a nonce.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2013)

Bushes, doorways, the kitchen floor. Yep. A kids bed? never have


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> A kids bed? never have



Neither have I. But I do know someone who pissed on another of our mate's sleeping parents once.


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 13, 2013)

I've avoided posting on this thread as I don't 'debate' well online as I do in 'real life' but has anyone even considered the fact that the child may well be telling the absolute truth - as she see's it?? - I think that she may well have been abused but not necessarily by Le Vell!  It seems that she had an 'expert'? who coached her, a mother who might not be doing the right thing, who knows?

For what it's worth, I was guilty as hell in judging Le Vell, right up until the end of the trial until I realised there was not an ounce of evidence against him and that I could not condemn a man based on what has been reported, and my own stupid prejudices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2013)

Smyz said:


> In your view would it be better for this person to get their day in court even if the verdict was not guilty?
> 
> The very low conviction rate for reported rapes is down to CPS policy of only prosecuting cases where there is a realistic chance of conviction. This is to avoid clogging the courts with expensive cases which will go nowhere.
> 
> Should there be a different policy for sexual crimes? If we do prosecute more then the conviction rate in court would go down.



I have a *MASSIVE* problem with the CPS using (as they do) a simplistic cost/benefit analysis to determine whether to prosecute.  Given that their "metric" is that they have to have a 66.6% likelihood of success ("better than even" as the last but one DPP put it), this means that only cases with "rock solid" physical or circumstantial evidence (or at least evidence *deemed to be* "rock solid") ever get prosecuted, and that "smart" offenders may walk, perhaps repeatedly.



> Is it worse to be called a liar by a jury or by the CPS?



The CPS aren't saying you're a liar.  Their message is worse: "You're not worth our time and money".



> I think more cases should be prosecuted regardless of the chance of conviction but we could probably do a lot more to make sure that victims feel believed even if there is little point putting the case to a jury.



Given that a significant minority of offenders (around 18% IIRC) "break" during trial, and change their plea to guilty, I agree that it might, at least for the victim's state of mind, be better to not base decisions to prosecute on a cost/benefit analysis.



> Savile would have been caught decades ago if the police were cross-referencing complaints.



That, I'm not so sure about, given Savile's cultivation of police officers.  Suborning individuals is a great way to trip the system up.



> Hall stopped lying and addmitted his crimes when several people who had never spoken to each other gave similar accounts of his behaviour.
> 
> Proactive cross-checking for previous complaints about the same person that never made it to court and keeping the case on file so that future complaints about the same person would trigger reopening the case.
> 
> This would help get serial offenders off the streets much more quickly and help to make sure that victims with weak legal cases truly believe that they are believed rather than just being fobbed off.



Proactive cross-checking has only really been possible for the last 20 years, and only really feasible resource-wise for the last 10, and *has* led to some prosecutions of historic cases.


----------



## mr steev (Sep 13, 2013)

I can only go on my experience as a jury member on one case of historic sex abuse, but



Thora said:


> Would you necessarily expect hospital reports or treatment in a historic child abuse case though?  To give an example, most child sexual abuse occurs in family - it seems unlikely that those children would be taken anywhere for treatment.



That's what happened in the case I was on. Not necessarily to do with the assualts per se, but the people involved. In historic cases it's not necessarily just reports from the time. The effects obviously last a lifetime



ViolentPanda said:


> I have a *MASSIVE* problem with the CPS using (as they do) a simplistic cost/benefit analysis to determine whether to prosecute.  Given that their "metric" is that they have to have a 66.6% likelihood of success ("better than even" as the last but one DPP put it), this means that only cases with "rock solid" physical or circumstantial evidence (or at least evidence *deemed to be* "rock solid") ever get prosecuted, and that "smart" offenders may walk, perhaps repeatedly.



I wouldn't say the case I was on had rock solid evidence. Most was took from the case itself and cross examination


----------



## smokedout (Sep 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can give you one factor that causes me extreme disquiet every time I see it emerge during a case, and this one is no exception.
> Le Vell's brief made much of the lack of consistency to the evidence the complainant gave.  What doesn't get mentioned is that evidential consistency from memory *isn't* consistent - it *can't* be, because memory isn't a recording device, it's associative.
> And guess what?  Trauma causes *dissociation* - to be precise, peri-traumatic dissociation, a fairly well-researched phenomenon.  Unfortunately, because producing "expert witnesses" to testify on memory and trauma is in the gift of the judge, and because "expert witnesses" can be seen by the jury (with a little assistance from the defence) as an attempt to shift the goalposts, prosecutors are loath to employ them in the first place.
> 
> All of which is to the detriment of Justice.



yep, a solicitor once pointed this out to me by saying that if every witness gives the exact same account of an event to the police, the police start investigating the witnesses because its so unlikely there stories would all match


----------



## smokedout (Sep 13, 2013)

of course this principle is abandoned when a bunch of coppers all just happen to have the exact same thing in their notebooks


----------



## mwgdrwg (Sep 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Bushes, doorways, the kitchen floor. Yep. A kids bed? never have



Robert Downey Jr famously did once.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> "Onto" her bed I think it was.
> 
> And falling onto a sleeping kids bed whilst hammered makes him a fucking stupid pisshead. Not a nonce.


No, quite. I was challenging the notion that the "scare-quotes" victim was necessarily unreliable simply because Le Vell was acquitted, by pointing out that the story, even by his admission, wasn't totally fabricated. Perhaps I could have made the point better.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Bushes, doorways, the kitchen floor. Yep. A kids bed? never have



youve never been drunk looking for the toilet and opened the wrong door in someones house . I have more than once, and if Id fallen over its a certainty Id have fallen on a kids bed . Ive certainly opened kids bedroom doors by mistake.  Good for you though .
Ive a mate who worked as a night porter in a hotel and almost every weekend he had to deal with drunken naked women , mostly, who got up for a piss and walked out the wrong door, locking themselves out . Going into the wrong room in unfamiliar surroundings when drunk is something that can happen to anyone . As is falling over .

Im beginning to wonder if most of this refusal to accept the jurys verdict is ideologically based as opposed to based on logic .Because  its certainly not as if anyones flagging up some startling occurence the jury overlooked or some evidence that was ruled inadmissable . Just some bollocks about quotas .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

RubyBlue said:


> I've avoided posting on this thread as I don't 'debate' well online as I do in 'real life' but has anyone even considered the fact that the child may well be telling the absolute truth - as she see's it?? - I think that she may well have been abused but not necessarily by Le Vell!  It seems that she had an 'expert'? who coached her, a mother who might not be doing the right thing, who knows?



Personally I believe these very disturbing allegations were the result of coaching from a very emotionally disturbed adult who may well have a strong emotional hold over the girl . The _letting the evil out_ quote in particular raises an eyebrow for me . And I believe the jury twigged to that, unanimously .


----------



## Thora (Sep 14, 2013)

Whatever happened, it's a family destroyed.  I find him celebrating quite weird in the circumstances.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Personally I believe these very disturbing allegations were the result of coaching from a very emotionally disturbed adult who may well have a strong emotional hold over the girl . The _letting the evil out_ quote in particular raises an eyebrow for me . And I believe the jury twigged to that, unanimously .


I really don't think we should be speculating on that any more than we should be speculating on whether Le Vell really is innocent.

This woman has done what she needed to do - she's testified in court in support of her original claim. It is not for us to publicly decide on her behalf which aspects of her story we happen to think are valid and which aren't, nor whether she was or wasn't coached.

And there's certainly no cause for speculating in the way you're doing here: she has no right of reply without "outing" herself, and I think her privacy needs respecting just as much as Le Vell's does.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I really don't think we should be speculating on that any more than we should be speculating on whether Le Vell really is innocent.
> 
> This woman has done what she needed to do - she's testified in court in support of her original claim. It is not for us to publicly decide on her behalf which aspects of her story we happen to think are valid and which aren't, nor whether she was or wasn't coached.
> 
> And there's certainly no cause for speculating in the way you're doing here: she has no right of reply without "outing" herself, and I think her privacy needs respecting just as much as Le Vell's does.



then ask them to delete the thread.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> then ask them to delete the thread.


Most people on the thread are neither overtly questioning Le Vell's not guilty status nor trying to jump to all kinds of conclusions about the complainant.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

Thora said:


> Whatever happened, it's a family destroyed.  I find him celebrating quite weird in the circumstances.



If you think thats just more evidence of guilt then just say it . I cant stand all this insidious stuff when theres  nothing to back it up with. And if they were lying then its not a family destroyed by any means .


----------



## Sirena (Sep 14, 2013)

Thora said:


> Whatever happened, it's a family destroyed.  I find him celebrating quite weird in the circumstances.


 No, that's perfectly reasonable, even though it looks bad in the papers.  A nightmare has been taken off him.  I would, in the circumstances.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Most people on the thread are neither overtly questioning Le Vell's not guilty status nor trying to jump to all kinds of conclusions about the complainant.



really...ive seen plenty of people on this thread complaining about him being aquitted . Ah ..I see..youve covered yourself by use of the word _overtly_ . They and the site can be sued if they do, thats the only reason why they dont . And your aware of that too despite implying they dont do it because theyve  higher morals than mine .

Stop giving me moral lectures please, while going about it in a dishonest manner .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

Sirena said:


> No, that's perfectly reasonable, even though it looks bad in the papers.  A nightmare has been taken off him.  I would, in the circumstances.



plus hes a self admitted alcoholic

an alcoholic going for a drink..weird


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Bushes, doorways, the kitchen floor. Yep. A kids bed? never have


I have but not when there's a kid in it.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> really...ive seen plenty of people on this thread complaining about him being aquitted . Ah ..I see..youve covered yourself by use of the word _overtly_ . They and the site can be sued if they do, thats the only reason why they dont . And your aware of that too despite implying they dont do it because theyve  higher morals than mine .


I'm not criticising your post because of some niceties of legal liability - I just don't like seeing someone speculate on the basis of fuck-all evidence about the credibility or motives of a witness in a serious criminal case. You can froth and blather about it all you like, and maybe you're even right, but I'm just calling it how I see it. No need to dress it up as some kind of Grand Conspiracy.



Casually Red said:


> Stop giving me moral lectures please, while going about it in a dishonest manner .


I have a feeling that anything involving "moral" might be a bit of a waste of breath...


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Ugh.
> 
> The victim's evidence did not secure a conviction. That's not the same as being unreliable.
> 
> And Le Vell admitted to drunkenly stumbling into her bed, IIRC.



despite twisting a major fact in the case thats not *overtly* accusing him, well done .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I'm not criticising your post because of some niceties of legal liability - I just don't like seeing someone speculate on the basis of fuck-all evidence about the credibility or motives of a witness in a serious criminal case. You can froth and blather about it all you like, and maybe you're even right, but I'm just calling it how I see it. No need to dress it up as some kind of Grand Conspiracy.
> 
> 
> I have a feeling that anything involving "moral" might be a bit of a waste of breath...



I never said you were doing it out of legal niceties . Im saying a whole host of people including yourself are repeatedly implying Le Vell is guilty as opposed to saying it outright . And the only thing that prevents you saying it outright is youd be banned and sued . But your pretending its because your morals, and those of others, are superior to  mine .

So Id appreciate it if you got off your sanctimonious high horse and stopped delivering the moralising sermons in this direction

mush


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I never said you were doing it out of legal niceties . Im saying a whole host of people including yourself are repeatedly implying Le Vell is guilty as opposed to saying it outright . And the only thing that prevents you saying it outright is youd be banned and sued . But your pretending its because your morals, and those of others, are superior to  mine .
> 
> So Id appreciate it if you got off your sanctimonious high horse and stopped delivering the moralising sermons in this direction
> 
> mush


I guess I'm not going to persuade you with my own particular line of high-minded rationalism, then?

Ah well, can't win 'em all, eh?

I'm still smiling. Are you? 

ETA: oh, and, incidentally - you are absolutely and completely wrong in your suppositions about my views on Le Vell's guilt or innocence. I am realistic enough to realise that I am in no position to have an opinion on that. The fact that you might think otherwise is...instructive, and rather makes my point for me.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2013)

Thora said:


> Whatever happened, it's a family destroyed.  I find him celebrating quite weird in the circumstances.



Really?

If I'd just been acquitted after being wrongfully accused of child rape I'd be on the piss for a month.


----------



## Thora (Sep 14, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> If I'd just been acquitted after being wrongfully accused of child rape I'd be on the piss for a month.


Depends who accused you I would think.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 14, 2013)

Well lets hope it hasn't led to any more falling on wrong beds.


----------



## Espresso (Sep 14, 2013)

Thora said:


> Whatever happened, it's a family destroyed.  I find him celebrating quite weird in the circumstances.


Why, though?
I know if I was innocent of a series of terrible crimes for which I had stood trial and the jury acquitted me and cleared my name, I'd certainly be celebrating.
If I was a seriously bad bastard and one hundred percent guilty of those same terrible crimes and my legal team succeeded in getting me off, same goes.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2013)

Thora said:


> Depends who accused you I would think.



No. It wouldn't.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I guess I'm not going to persuade you with my own particular line of high-minded rationalism, then?
> .



no, wont be persuading me of Le Vells guilt no matter how many times you misrepresent facts or imply stuff, or tell me your not trying to persuade anyone of his guilt

and I always smile, im a people person .


----------



## Sirena (Sep 14, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no, wont be persuading me of Le Vells guilt no matter how many times you misrepresent facts or imply stuff, or tell me your not trying to persuade anyone of his guilt
> 
> and I always smile, im a people person .


 ...and this is a people place....


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Well lets hope it hasn't led to any more falling on wrong beds.



the issue isnt about falling on a bed . Its a claim that he drunkenly raped a 6 year old while putting a teddy bear over her mouth to stop her screaming but with enough care to let her breathe, however thats done . While announcing he was _letting his evil out _. Among other things .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> If I'd just been acquitted after being wrongfully accused of child rape I'd be on the piss for a month.



I get the feeling if he hadnt gone for a drink it would be implied he was abstaining from alcohol in case he raped any more children . Such was his fear of himself .


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 15, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Personally I believe these very disturbing allegations were the result of coaching from a very emotionally disturbed adult who may well have a strong emotional hold over the girl . The _letting the evil out_ quote in particular raises an eyebrow for me . And I believe the jury twigged to that, unanimously .



Yes - that is what I think - I was surprised that this wasn't t picked up earlier - in the thread I mean


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 15, 2013)

RubyBlue said:


> Yes - that is what I think - I was surprised that this wasn't t picked up earlier - in the thread I mean



this is why the repeated references to _evil_ and symbolic exorcising of inner demons by medium of rape  by the 2 witnesses should be treated with scepticism .

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13119#.UjUDMX_NnRM

As should the seemingly ideologically based refusal of certain people to accept the verdict . Theres already been one nut banned from this site for taking the ideological position a step too far and making pretty outrageous accusations against anyone who wont go along with the rigours of the  position.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 15, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> The tabs are falling over themselves sympathising with Le Vell,course if he was foungd guilty he'd get the full 'sex beast' treatment off them,hypriticial cunts the lot of them....



It may have escaped your notice but from the very outset of the trial their front pages were plastered with the worst imaginable accusations against him, carried in the most salacious detail, but with the legal nicety of putting a couple of quotation marks around them . Theyd put a noose around his neck and were just itching to pull the handle .

Lets not forget too if hed been found guilty a fair few on here who slag off the same smut rags would be coming out with the precise same commentary as them.


Not that Im blameless as I freely admit to having been prepared to believe that shit and would have hung him myself.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 15, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> The CPS aren't calling anyone a liar in failing to bring a prosecution though are they?  They _may_ consider an accuser a liar, but their primary concern is whether or not they think there's sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully.



the primary concern of the CPS is covering the CPS own arse . Hence pre Jimmy Saville no charges as the allegations werent considered credible  ,then post Saville some additional _flashbacks_ of supposedly repressed memories being considered as credible evidence all of a sudden. Its frankly a disgrace that ever got to court in my opinion .


----------



## existentialist (Sep 15, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no, wont be persuading me of Le Vells guilt no matter how many times you misrepresent facts or imply stuff, or tell me your not trying to persuade anyone of his guilt
> 
> and I always smile, im a people person .


You are an idiot. Nothing in what I have said has anything to do with Le Vell's guilt. I wonder if you're making the rather classic mistake of assuming that, because he is innocent, it automatically discredits the complainant.


----------



## tony.c (Sep 15, 2013)

Bit on news saying two more Corrie actors are being questioned about sex allegations.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 15, 2013)

existentialist said:


> You are an idiot. Nothing in what I have said has anything to do with Le Vell's guilt. I wonder if you're making the rather classic mistake of assuming that, because he is innocent, it automatically discredits the complainant.



With all due respect, 'because he is innocent' can do _nothing but_ discredit the complainant. 

His evidence was found to be credible. The complainant's was not. Hence the verdict.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> plus hes a self admitted alcoholic
> 
> an alcoholic going for a drink..weird



Quite.

Just about every half-baked hack who still feels the need to besmirch Le Vell is banging on about the "unedifying sight of seeing an alcoholic taking a drink", or somesuch shit.

Fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2013)

As a person suffering badly with a drink problem myself I feel confident to say if I had just been aquitted of any charge whatsoever I would be tanning a pint.

Falling asleep in an occupied childs bed though? come the fuck on. You are never THAT pissed.


----------



## debsnz (Sep 15, 2013)

Weird that an "innocent" man would be declaring his forgiveness for his accuser the minute he gets acquitted, as was reported in the papers today. 

Especially after he'd gone to such lengths to stress what a vindictive and nasty fantasist liar she apparently is.  

In fact I'd have thought any truly innocent man would've been very angry, for a very long time. Or is Le Vell so forgiving and merciful as to make Mother Teresa look bad?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Falling asleep in an occupied childs bed though? come the fuck on. You are never THAT pissed.



I really don't find that as surprising as you seem to, Dotski.  

On a list of "stupid shit that folk have done whilst pissed", I don't think that would even make the top 10!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> Weird that an "innocent" man would be declaring his forgiveness for his accuser the minute he gets acquitted, as was reported in the papers today.
> 
> Especially after he'd gone to such lengths to stress what a vindictive and nasty fantasist liar she apparently is.
> 
> In fact I'd have thought any truly innocent man would've been very angry, for a very long time. Or is Le Vell so forgiving and merciful as to make Mother Teresa look bad?



Oh do piss off, ffs.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Falling asleep in an occupied childs bed though? come the fuck on. You are never THAT pissed.





Spymaster said:


> I really don't find that as surprising as you seem to, Dotski.
> 
> On a list of "stupid shit that folk have done whilst pissed", I don't think that would even make the top 10!


 
I agree with that.  When you're going through  messy stage of your life, you often find yourself in messy circumstances with like-minded people and everything just becomes a messy blur.


----------



## debsnz (Sep 15, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Oh piss off.



WWWhy? His response makes no sense whatsoever. I wouldn't forgive someone 
so quickly if they made up stories to ruin my life and send me to prison. Not in a million years. It doesn't add up.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> WWWhy? His response makes no sense whatsoever. I wouldn't forgive someone
> so quickly if they made up stories to ruin my life and send me to prison. Not in a million years. It doesn't add up.



I'm going out. I'll leave it to others to tear you to pieces.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> WWWhy? His response makes no sense whatsoever. I wouldn't forgive someone
> so quickly if they made up stories to ruin my life and send me to prison. Not in a million years. It doesn't add up.


 
I would think to do it as a technique to avoid carrying destructive anger.  A christian would do it because that's how christians are supposed to act.  A celebrity might be advised to do it because being generous in victory might help reinstate themself in the popular opinion.


----------



## debsnz (Sep 15, 2013)

Sirena said:


> I would think to do it as a technique to avoid carrying destructive anger.  A christian would do it because that's how christians are supposed to act.  A celebrity might be advised to do it because being generous in victory might help reinstate themself in the popular opinion.



Hmm so just pretending to forgive in order to look good then? 

It's still weird. Two close friends of mine were falsely accused;  one was not just acquitted but got the woman sent to jail for perjury. The other, it never got to court because the cops threw it out, but to this day my mate hates her guts. I'd have thought that those were "normal" reactions to such a serious false accusation. Forgiveness and reconciliation - not so much. But I guess I'm not a celebrity, perhaps they respond differently to the rest of us.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> Weird that an "innocent" man would be declaring his forgiveness for his accuser the minute he gets acquitted, as was reported in the papers today.
> 
> Especially after he'd gone to such lengths to stress what a vindictive and nasty fantasist liar she apparently is.
> 
> In fact I'd have thought any truly innocent man would've been very angry, for a very long time. Or is Le Vell so forgiving and merciful as to make Mother Teresa look bad?




I've seen murder trials where the bloke has been sent to prison forever and the parents of the murdered woman (It usually is) forgive them. It's not unknown. The majority are like 'BURN IN HELL!I WISH WE COULD HANG YOU' but there are forgivers. And if Webster is innocent and has the grace to wish his accuser well then fair play to him.

in MY OPINION he's guilty as sin but thats just my opinion and has no basis in fact and has been shown wrong in a court of law.


----------



## Thora (Sep 15, 2013)

.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> Hmm so just pretending to forgive in order to look good then?
> 
> It's still weird. Two close friends of mine were falsely accused;  one was not just acquitted but got the woman sent to jail for perjury. The other, it never got to court because the cops threw it out, but to this day my mate hates her guts. I'd have thought that those were "normal" reactions to such a serious false accusation. Forgiveness and reconciliation - not so much. But I guess I'm not a celebrity, perhaps they respond differently to the rest of us.


 
You're still trying to find something suspicious in generosity?  Perhaps he is just a good man?  I don't know but I know his fellow-actors in Corrie have come out in support of him.

I don't read 'The Sun' but the story about the mother of the accused being involved in 'Satanism' must have come from somewhere.  From her daughter or someone associated with her daughter?  And, if they mention 'Satanism', that brings up all the associations of 'recovered memories' or false memory syndrome that accompanied the Satanic Ritual Abuse moral panic of the late 80s.


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> Weird that an "innocent" man would be declaring his forgiveness for his accuser the minute he gets acquitted, as was reported in the papers today.
> 
> Especially after he'd gone to such lengths to stress what a vindictive and nasty fantasist liar she apparently is.
> 
> In fact I'd have thought any truly innocent man would've been very angry, for a very long time. Or is Le Vell so forgiving and merciful as to make Mother Teresa look bad?



Oh gosh, here we go again - damned if he does and dammed if he doesn't!


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> WWWhy? His response makes no sense whatsoever. I wouldn't forgive someone
> so quickly if they made up stories to ruin my life and send me to prison. Not in a million years. It doesn't add up.



It does to me - I would be so fucking relieved I would forgive Satan himself - doesn't mean when all of this has sunk in that he will then feel the same - right now he is feeling he has been saved from Hell itself - give him a fucking break for gods sake.


----------



## Geri (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> WWWhy? His response makes no sense whatsoever. I wouldn't forgive someone
> so quickly if they made up stories to ruin my life and send me to prison. Not in a million years. It doesn't add up.



He actually said "in time I do think I will be able to forgive." I found this out by reading the article instead of just the headline.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> WWWhy? His response makes no sense whatsoever. I wouldn't forgive someone
> so quickly if they made up stories to ruin my life and send me to prison. Not in a million years. It doesn't add up.



He might do that if the victim is who it was rumoured to be. 

In fact if as his defence suggested, the child was the victim of manipulation by some kind of therapist then it makes perfect sense to be forgiving.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> in MY OPINION he's guilty as sin but thats just my opinion and has no basis in fact and has been shown wrong in a court of law.


This thread is a pretty good illustration of the damage any accusation of rape can do, regardless of whether or not you're convicted. Unless you can somehow _prove_ innocence, and proving a negative is often impossible, a cloud of suspicion is left hanging over you. 

This isn't a point about celebrity cases, either. The point is even more true for lower-profile cases of people not in the public eye. They will probably already have lost their job, and won't get it back even after the acquittal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> Weird that an "innocent" man would be declaring his forgiveness for his accuser the minute he gets acquitted, as was reported in the papers today.
> 
> Especially after he'd gone to such lengths to stress what a vindictive and nasty fantasist liar she apparently is.



TBF, Le Vell is probably playing to an audience, hence the "forgiveness" _schtick_.  He's looking to get his career back on track, and publicly stating dislike or hatred for his accuser won't win him any roles. Playing the humble and forgiving person who has been hard done by, on the other hand... 



> In fact I'd have thought any truly innocent man would've been very angry, for a very long time. Or is Le Vell so forgiving and merciful as to make Mother Teresa look bad?



He's an actor. He acts.  "All the world's a stage" and all that.


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 15, 2013)

debsnz said:


> Hmm so just pretending to forgive in order to look good then?
> 
> It's still weird. Two close friends of mine were falsely accused;  one was not just acquitted but got the woman sent to jail for perjury. The other, it never got to court because the cops threw it out, but to this day my mate hates her guts. I'd have thought that those were "normal" reactions to such a serious false accusation. Forgiveness and reconciliation - not so much. But I guess I'm not a celebrity, perhaps they respond differently to the rest of us.



Maybe he is willing to forgive because he recognises that she is also a victim - not a victim of his but a young woman who has been used and manipulated?  I think she may well have been abused - just not by him


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, Le Vell is probably playing to an audience, hence the "forgiveness" _schtick_.  He's looking to get his career back on track, and publicly stating dislike or hatred for his accuser won't win him any roles. Playing the humble and forgiving person who has been hard done by, on the other hand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's an actor. He acts.  "All the world's a stage" and all that.



Maybe he is just relieved at getting his life back?  It's going to take an awful long time for him - let's not forget that he hasn't publicly made any such comments - his family have.  Leave the guy alone now.


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 15, 2013)

I'm not reading anymore of this thread - some folk's attitudes are making me feel a little bit sick.  I don't feel good today and this is depressing the fuck out of me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2013)

RubyBlue said:


> Maybe he is just relieved at getting his life back?  It's going to take an awful long time for him - let's not forget that he hasn't publicly made any such comments - his family have.  Leave the guy alone now.



You've got your opinion, I have mine.  Your opinion doesn't give you the right to tell me to "leave the guy alone", though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2013)

RubyBlue said:


> I'm not reading anymore of this thread - some folk's attitudes are making me feel a little bit sick.



Your self-righteous pusillanimity makes *me* sick, but I won't stop posting on the thread because of it.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 29, 2013)

Sirena said:


> You're still trying to find something suspicious in generosity?  Perhaps he is just a good man?  I don't know but I know his fellow-actors in Corrie have come out in support of him.
> 
> I don't read 'The Sun' but the story about the mother of the accused being involved in 'Satanism' must have come from somewhere.  From her daughter or someone associated with her daughter?  And, if they mention 'Satanism', that brings up all the associations of 'recovered memories' or false memory syndrome that accompanied the Satanic Ritual Abuse moral panic of the late 80s.



one of the _steps_ alcoholics have to take is to simply accept there are events in your life you just cant change, and to just let it go with good grace . Id be hiring a hitman though.


----------

