to worry about the accused?

(540 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

WitchWay Mon 20-Jan-14 20:12:20

DLT for example. How is anything going to be proven? Are people jumping on a bandwagon or am I very wrong to even think that? I don't condone abuse - far from it - but surely they can't all have been sailing along in JS's wake - can they?

pussycatdoll Mon 20-Jan-14 20:15:14

Can you explain what glt is & us?

pussycatdoll Mon 20-Jan-14 20:15:57

Sorry dlt & js?

WitchWay Mon 20-Jan-14 20:17:34

Dave Lee Travis & Jimmy Savile

GoofyIsACow Mon 20-Jan-14 20:17:37

Dave lee travis... Jimmy saville, but i dont understand the question, do you mean they wont be given a fair trial because of the 'abuse bandwagon' confused hmm

mum2bubble Mon 20-Jan-14 20:17:39

Dave Lee Travis & Jimmy Savile

TheXxed Mon 20-Jan-14 20:17:54

Is js Jimmy saville?

WitchWay Mon 20-Jan-14 20:22:11

Yes that's what I mean Goofy
If people are jumping on a bandwagon & they are innocent, how dreadful really.

ConstantCraving Mon 20-Jan-14 20:32:40

It is very difficult to get the CPS to progress a case unless there is a GOOD chance of a conviction - especially in cases of historic sexual assault. They clearly feel there is enough evidence to take this forward - so no, no 'bandwagon'.

NeedaWee Mon 20-Jan-14 20:36:31

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

RhondaJean Mon 20-Jan-14 20:38:47

Given we have a legal system in place which assumes innocence until proven guilty, and that it is ridiculously difficult to get a sexual assualt case to guilty verdict, I wouldn't worry too much. They will have their chance to clear their names under the due process.

Micheal Le Vell was found not guilty. I think juries are capable of finding either verdict. No reason not to think about and worry over justice and the justice system, though. You do know that the chances of someone guilty never facing justice are massively, hugely, vastly more likely than an innocent person going to jail for child abuse, don't you?

GoofyIsACow Mon 20-Jan-14 20:41:55

I do think there is a case for anonimity for accused until proven guilty in these kind of cases. Do you think it will have affected Michael le Vell's career?

fifi669 Mon 20-Jan-14 20:42:35

My sister is already calling Rolf Harris a dirty paedo. I'm much more innocent til proven guilty.... And she's the one with the law degree/masters!

His friends are said to be very worried about his mental health.

SinisterSal Mon 20-Jan-14 20:42:42

I think the judiciary have probably thought of that.

It would be very surprising if a historical case of child abuse being brought to court resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Extremely surprised.

SinisterSal Mon 20-Jan-14 20:45:23

Well what then? Give up on the legal system becuse some people don't know how it works?

It would be great if you could trust the system to deliver - then there would be no Mud Sticks bs because you could trust the system to find the guilty guilty and the public would no longer need to worry. That's what's needed. How it could be done is a different thread

InPursuitOfOblivion Mon 20-Jan-14 20:47:27

I worry for the accused too. Even when they are found innocent the stigma of having been accused in the first place never goes away. sad

theborrower Mon 20-Jan-14 20:48:16

YABU. Why would people jump on a bandwagon? You do know that many victims don't report abuse for many years because they are scared they won't be believed, and one of the reasons that accused people are named is because it prompts/gives confidence to other victims to report it?

InPursuitOfOblivion Mon 20-Jan-14 20:51:45

Theborrower there are genuine cases out there, but there are also dispicable bastards who tell awful lies for attention/compensation/whatever.
The victims of these lies deserve protection too, however few they may be.

theborrower Mon 20-Jan-14 21:07:26

Yes, there are genuine cases of people falsely crying rape, but these aren't as common as people think. The rate is 3%, which is apparently no higher than for other crimes. www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/campaigns/false-allegations/

People accused of other crimes, including murder, are not granted anonymity. There was an excellent article in the press a few months ago on why the status quo should remain - I'm struggling to find it online as I can't remember where I saw it but if I find it I'll post it.

There was an enormous thread on this at the time of Michael Le Vell's case, do we need to go over it again?

InPursuitOfOblivion Mon 20-Jan-14 21:18:30

I didn't see the thread. And I thought we were talking about all accused I.e rape, murder, fraud, tax evasion etc.

theborrower Mon 20-Jan-14 21:25:20

According to the OP's op, we are talking about people accused of abuse, specifically Dave Lee Travis and Jimmy Saville.

Anyway, that's my tuppence, I'm away to bed. Tired and pregnant and in danger of getting worked up :-)

Caitlin17 Mon 20-Jan-14 22:16:47

There is no justification for anonymity for the accused. I can't remember the legal principle (Moorov doctrine? ) but a series of incidents can provide corroboration where it is otherwise lacking.

It works both ways. Defence for Eddie Shah and Michael Le Veil can equally point out that despite the publicity no one else came forward.

WitchWay Mon 20-Jan-14 22:39:15

I think we can take it as read that Jimmy Savile was guilty he was fucking weird after all but DLT - oh, I loved his Radio 1 programme & seeing him on TOTP - & lovely Rolf - what a shame if this is all true sad

SuzanneUK Mon 20-Jan-14 22:52:22

People accused of other crimes, including murder, are not granted anonymity.

Indeed, and victims of other crimes, including murder, are not granted anonymity either.

So it's rather hard to see why alleged victims of sexual abuse are granted anonymity while alleged perpetrators are not.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now