I could give plenty of examples.
And combat isn’t fair.
Like the entire RAF does, you mean?
Yep Exactly. Proves my point really.
[quote=“MattB, post:11, topic:3574, full:true”]It is a bit complicated - on the one hand, in a perfect world anonymity for anyone accused of something would be assured until convicted.
But on the other it has to be said that a lack of anonymity has shone light on to certain people who might have otherwise avoided justice; particularly in the case of older accusations. For example Kevin Spacey who is looking on increasingly shaky ground - if it was his word against one other then it’s entirely possible that he would have gotten off scot-free, if it’s dozens of complainants or witnesses then it’s a much stronger case.
It’s a case of choosing the lesser of two evils and I’m not entirely certain which one it is.[/quote]
Not really, anonymity until proven to be guilty just means you aren’t hung out to dry from day one and you can go about your normal life, but in the knowledge that you will at some point have to answer questions and face potential prosecution for your actions. If found “not guilty” carry on but found guilty become known publically.
It’s all simple but needs the media to not be so intent on a story and direct any complainants to the police for further action. Also the police not being so bloody eager to give out names.
People like those you quote aren’t getting away with anything, as they would have had a chat with the police.
1 Like
It’s not that simple, because without the publication of the names you wouldn’t have the additional victims come forward who are key to proving to historical allegations.
funny how they come forward when the media kicks off and they can make a quick bit of cash out of it.
1 Like
They aren’t key to proving anything, they are key to providing a witness statement, which is the weakest form of evidence, from 10/20/30 years ago.
Facts not feelings.
If they felt so strongly about it, they should have come forward sooner. There’s no point closing the stable door when the horse has bolted, ran off down a field, and spent a decade grazing.
To prove a historic offence is all about the witness statements, the more you have, the more likely that they are to paint a picture which will provide the truth.
Strangely enough traumatic experiences stay with people and where prosecutions are being successful is where there are multiple victims widely separated all telling the same story.
3 Likes
It’s not like people could lie or manipulate a witness statement.
Facts. Not feelings.
Says the guy using his feelings to challenge alleged facts
1 Like
Hence why multiple statements from multiple people are required. One person can say what they want & it’s almost impossible to prove or disprove several unrelated people all saying the same thing (especially when to been done in the same way) demonstrates a course of conduct.
Professional not armchair expert.
2 Likes
Professional sounds too much like expert to me. At voted Brexit to get rid of experts
I don’t have feelings. I am not weak.
Really? Cos you seem to get butt hurt on here a lot. Which is fine for humans, but just confusing if you’re not human and don’t have feelings
1 Like
Granted if it’s the same there could maybe be a chance of behavioural patterns. But it’s still witness statements from 10/20/30 years ago.
Instead of knee jerk witch hunts, we should be encouraging and aiming at victims to come forward sooner and actually make a difference and stop further assaults. Rather than suddenly coming to the realisation they can get some quick cash out of it.
Luckily I am not a human. Not butthurt at all.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I despise the media. And I hate the regressive left, knee jerk, granola eating, weak society we are. And trust me, it takes a lot more for me to get “butthurt” (which by the way, some would consider offensive. I suggest you watch your privilege.)
“We are the angry mob, we read the papers everyday. We hate who we hate, we like who we like. But we’re oh so easily swayed.
1 Like
[quote=“daws1159, post:28, topic:3574, full:true”]To prove a historic offence is all about the witness statements, the more you have, the more likely that they are to paint a picture which will provide the truth.
Strangely enough traumatic experiences stay with people and where prosecutions are being successful is where there are multiple victims widely separated all telling the same story.[/quote]
I would doubt this given the way one person says something and that’s it they are hung, drawn and quartered and the Police plaster their names all over the media. This is from what you say just to try and get others to say something and then regardless of any truth in the matter the lives of those named are ruined. I’m waiting for someone so named and found not guilty to sue for millions for defamation. If this happened I bet there would be change in the process.
I remember the story Paul Gambaccini told that when the police couldn’t get a prosecution initially they hounded others including his friends to try and secure a case and seemed extremely disappointed when they couldn’t and had to close it. So much for acting in fairness with the best interests of all concerned, which is what they should do.
I don’t dispute that traumatic experiences like those reported linger, but why not say something at the time and not wait until it becomes newsworthy, that’s the bit that I cannot my mind around.
1 Like
Well for starters at the time the victims may well have been children and not known how to process what was going on - later in life they may well have repressed the memories and it’s only when something like this comes out that it all comes flooding back.
And it’s not only children that it happens to - adults also repress traumatic events, not to mention those who keep quiet because they don’t think they’ll be believed, especially against a powerful and respected individual when it’s one person’s word against another.
Because of many complex psychological reasons that I don’t expect you to understand.
Generally with traumatic experiences we have 4 reactions: fight, flight, freeze, appease.
You have heard of the first two, but the last two are also coming to the fore more. It is a natural protective reaction to comply with an attacker or someone causing trauma. That is a subconscious response and not necessarily something you can control. The same applies for freeze - literally doing or saying nothing.
People will not speak of this for various reasons - some may fear repercussions from abuser, some may fear not being believed, some feel it’s their fault and don’t want or can’t handle the perceived shame, some are too young to realise that what happened wasn’t “normal”.
The amount of people doing it “For some cash” will usually be negligible. Of course you will get some malicious or spurious claims but the vast majority - especially the ones who forego anonymity - will be telling the truth. Why else put yourself in the public eye so prominently?
1 Like
Some of these people did come forward at the time and were laughed away and told to go away by parents, police etc.
2 Likes