To believe that you are innocent until found guilty in court

(124 Posts)

Very sad to find that so many people think that if charged with child abuse someone is guilty.

The words child abuse make us all go cold and I am the first to think death is to good. However it gets like a witch hunt ever time someone is accused.

I say change the law to make only those found guilty put all over the press.

I have a relative accused at present and waiting to go to court. In our case so much local support from friends and relatives but not everyone has that. (The accuser is the one who has spread it about where we live, not us).

I know people feel they would want to now but surely you only let people you trust around your children.

If charged people can not work with kids and it is normal for bail to include not being around/alone with under 16s.

HousewifeFromHeaven Sat 16-Feb-13 22:40:41

Yes it is innocent until proven guilty of course however it is human nature to speculate.

It's not right I know but you can't ignore the elephant in the room!

AgentZigzag Sat 16-Feb-13 22:43:48

I'm not suggesting anything about your relative at all, only how I can imagine it happening, but sometimes people might think that the police don't go around arresting people for no reason, and if they think something's gone on, there's a possibility it has.

Like you say, just the words 'child abuse' are so serious that it makes people take notice, and because they think there's no smoke without a fire they want to be seen and feel as though they're making a stand against it.

They're wrong of course and most will rethink it and know they are, but there'll always be some who don't.

catgirl1976 Sat 16-Feb-13 22:44:20


But I van't help thinking.................^19 counts^?

AgentZigzag Sat 16-Feb-13 22:49:23

I've re-read the OP and can't see where 19 counts come into it catgirl.

catgirl1976 Sat 16-Feb-13 22:49:49

Sorry blush

Just hard at present to think a jury may be made up of the people who say guilty as soon as the words child abuse are said.

If a judge says no case to answer on presenting of evidence the public seem to think "well he got away with it".

Everyone accused might as well just pack a toothbrush and march of to prison with out going to court. In cases of historic abuse any way.

catgirl1976 Sat 16-Feb-13 22:52:56

It must be a horrific thing to be accused of if you are not guilty

I would word it slightly differently to you OP - I try to remember that legally someone is innocent until proven guilty. Whether I actually believe they're innocent or not is another matter and pretty irrelevant.

I see your point though and quite agree. The 'no smoke without fire' brigade really wind me up.

catgirl1976 Sat 16-Feb-13 23:00:53

I'm not often in that brigade

I just wonder if evidence has been examined and it is felt there is enough to charge someone on multiple counts over a long time period it suggests a little more liklihood of guilt than perhaps a single allegation

That said, I agree with the OP and am not proud of my feelings

My relative has always been such a strong character. We are doing all we can to hold him strong but he is a broken man. I was thinking the other day people must kill themselves under this pressure.

To have someone hate you so much they can do this to your family makes you shakey. In our case hate and money are the motives.

catgirl1976 Sat 16-Feb-13 23:04:57

I am sorry about your relative (and for not reading the OP properly)

I don;t think people should be named unless found guilty tbh

Sorry catgirl, that wasn't aimed at you! It was intended as a general comment, I hadn't seen your post above. blush

FamiliesShareGerms Sat 16-Feb-13 23:07:27

I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is a very important cornerstone of our legal system.

But... Prosecutions can take months to complete, and is it really appropriate to allow someone who has been charged with something like child abuse (or medical negligence, or financial malpractice) to continue in their posts (and potentially endanger others) while the charges are concluded? I think I would not want my son to be taught by a teacher currently fighting a child abuse charge (or my mum treated by a doctor being charged for medical negligence).

I don't really know how best to reconcile these positions.

catgirl1976 Sat 16-Feb-13 23:07:48

No..........i really ballsed up and didn't read the OP properly and assumed this was a reference to a current case in the news

My apologies OP

Dromedary Sat 16-Feb-13 23:09:11

It's not "innocent until proved guilty", it's "assumed innocent until proved guilty". From the point of view of the legal system, that is.

Not commenting at all on the OP's relative's situation, but people want to make up their own minds. For instance if a man has been in court a couple of times on charges of rape (which in most cases does not get to court, and rarely results in a conviction), and is acquitted both times, he's not someone you'll want to be going on a date with, I shouldn't think.

Narked Sat 16-Feb-13 23:09:16

Innocent until proven guilty is about our legal system in England and Wales. The burden of proving that the accused did wrong is on the prosecution. As opposed to eg the French system where the onus is on the accused to show their innocence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what people think about a person. It simply says that the state will not take action until a person has been found guilty.

The majority of rapes aren't reported. That doesn't mean that those people weren't raped.

DizzyZebra Sat 16-Feb-13 23:09:23

I think in cases such as this, and others (Such as rape etc), There is a delicate balance. On one hand - You have someone who is not proven guilty - And I do believe identities should be kept absolutely secret, And anyone releasing details should be held accountable.

On the other hand, You have someone who is saying they ave suffered an unthinkable ordeal - You can't just go around calling people liars.

I think things like this need to be better dealt with for both Victim AND the accused in all pre trial proceedings.

ChewinTheFat Sat 16-Feb-13 23:09:43

I think a lot of people instantly think 'no smoke without fire' which isn't fair but as soon as you hear child abuse accusations you tend to think it must be true . General 'you''. I don't know, same with downloading child pornography etc, how would the police get it wrong?

Narked Sat 16-Feb-13 23:13:16

It also encourages other victims who may not have reported their attacks to come forward.

Flojobunny Sat 16-Feb-13 23:13:47

We see so many times, people get arrest but there's not enough to go on to get charged. You think by the time they are charged then there must be some sort of evidence that will stand up in court so its hard not to speculate on whether its solid evidence or someone out to make trouble. Then it goes to court and can u ever be sure that the guilty are guilty and the not guilty are not guilty. Only 2 people will ever really know what happened.

Cherriesarelovely Sat 16-Feb-13 23:14:53

I had a friend who was on jury service for a child abuse case. He told me that it was not clear cut at all and "not like on the TV" where you sort of know the answer. He said when they were deliberating he kept thinking that whatever they decided they were going toruin someone's life and what if they were wrong? Yanbu. If someone is an abuser then that is one thing but to be falsely accused? What an utter nightmare.

steppemum Sat 16-Feb-13 23:15:09

i have another slant on this.

someone I know discovered her dh was an abuser (she discovered when police came to house and arrested him)
she was in total shock, had no idea, her life and marriage came crashing down. they had 3 dcs, and her only aim was to protect them. (they were not abused)

His name was never in press (for some reason we still do not understand) no-one knew except those who the accuser told and those my friend has told.

He was guilty and is serving a long sentence. very few people still know. This has been incredibly important for her dcs. They have lost their dad, in circumstances that they do not understand, and cannot come to terms with. But because there was little publicity, they have been able at least to stay in own home and own schools, with own friends

It is not just the accuser who suffers when there is an accusation flying round. The wife (or husband) and their kids may be entirely innocent and tarred with same brush

AgentZigzag Sat 16-Feb-13 23:15:44

It doesn't seem fair to make their names public, it can be a problem when teachers are accused of things by pupils can't it? That it's too late afterwards, and like you say OP, people think they've just got away with it.

Shit sticks.

But thinking of someone like Michael Jackson, it's easy to think there was something in the system (in the way things were presented in court) that it was just a technicality that he wasn't found guilty.

Not that I necessarily agree with that.

My relative has been charged with 8 counts. Not sure if allowed to say what they are but only 4 I would call abuse. 4 of the count are things that most of us do with our kids or friends kids all the time.

I think once they have accusations of abuse any previous physical contact is then put down to grooming? It is all very odd? 4 counts are clothed, not touching genital area must just be written up as frightening or something. Not read statements she made so don't no details. Judge should just chuck those out of court straight away lawyers say.

Andro Sat 16-Feb-13 23:18:02

The problem with sexual abuse type cases is that mud stick - irrespective of the verdict/dismissal. The damage done, both to the accused and their family, is often irreparable. For that reason I have the often criticised opinion that the accused should have the right to anonymity (with neither the accused, accuser nor anyone involved being permitted to spread names) until the verdict is handed down - anonymity lifted if the verdict is guilty.

WorraLiberty Sat 16-Feb-13 23:20:38

I don't think anyone should be named and shamed unless proven guilty in court.

Too many lives are often ruined by public accusations...and not just the lives of the accused.

GinAndT0nic Sat 16-Feb-13 23:22:14

innocent until proven guilty means that the punishment won't be meted out though. it doesn't mean that people have no right to react (conversationally) to what appears to have happened. I would have some trust in the police that if they take somebody into questioning for sex abuse, they have reason to suspect and I would want to let the police get on with that job first and foremost before saying innocent until proven guilty. if found innocent, suspect is released.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 16-Feb-13 23:22:52

Flogging this horse again?
I've yet to see anything charged which is something I would do with my or friends' children. Rather worrying admission, that.
I'd give up on this if I were you.

steppemum Sat 16-Feb-13 23:23:14

I agree andro.

It isn't always easy to keep the accuser quiet though. (and as they are the victim - or victims parents- they may feel they have the right to speak to who they like)
In the case I mentioned, he went down quickly for a related crime, but it took police nearly a year to arrest him for abuse which was the reason the investigation started in the first place. So as he hadn't been charged, would everyone have to keep quiet? Or only once it is sub-judicy?

FamiliesShareGerms Sat 16-Feb-13 23:24:44

I agree with the anonymity suggestions. But in reality, if say a teacher is suspended from work pending a prosecution for something inappropriate with a pupil, word soon gets round, even if they are ultimately completely exonerated

Narked Sat 16-Feb-13 23:25:00

This poster's whole posting history is about their relative being charged with the sexual abuse of a child.

AgentZigzag Sat 16-Feb-13 23:26:42

Was that a typo when you said 'she' in 'Not read statements she made so don't no details', that this is a female relative who's been accused of 'child abuse'.

From my understanding in present day rape or child abuse cases it is had to get them to court and even harder to get a guilty verdict.

With historical abuse the cps does not need to have as much evidence to go to court. Just a accuser and someone saying they told them at the time will do.

Historical abuse cases have a much much high rate of conviction than resent cases.

AgentZigzag Sat 16-Feb-13 23:28:21

Ah, Narked.

Someone genuinely trying to get their heads round something, possibly?

poppypebble Sat 16-Feb-13 23:28:39

I was raped. My rapist was caught and charged, but the CPS were not sure they would secure a conviction. After his name and picture appeared in the local paper 3 more women came forward who had been attacked by him in the same circumstances. If he'd have had anonymity those women may never have had the justice they deserved, and I might very well have found myself branded a fantasist in court.

Andro Sat 16-Feb-13 23:29:48

FamiliesShareGerms - and by the time they're completely exonerated, their reputation has been destroyed (along with their authority in the classroom).

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 16-Feb-13 23:30:46

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Narked I'm not sure why that's relevant to the discussion.

poppy makes a good point. I've been on both sides of the situation - I was raped (he wasn't even interviewed by the police) and someone close to me was falsely accused of rape. Tbh I think that the accused should have anonymity at least until charged, but that assumes that the system works properly. Which it doesn't.

That is a very valid point poppypeddle not one I have spent anytime thinking about but will now.

I suppose I am looking at this from the side her being extended family rather than two stranges or a care home etc...

No answer really is there.................?

OTTMummA Sat 16-Feb-13 23:36:04

What will you do if your relative is found guilty?
I find your posts disturbing tbh.
What exactly are you trying to achieve?

Narked Sat 16-Feb-13 23:40:14

Perhaps because the OP keeps dropping details of an ongoing sexual abuse case into threads?

FamiliesShareGerms Sat 16-Feb-13 23:41:49

Indeed, Andro

hippo123 Sat 16-Feb-13 23:43:15

Surely if they are charged there is evidence against them which the police / courts believe will lead to a conviction when taken to court? Sadly many people report abuse / rape yet the evidence isn't alwaye there to prosecute ( any
surviours don't let this put you off reporting as it will always remine on their file). As to only letting people you trust around your children, I'm sure most parents would agree with that, however sadly many such abusers have almost groomed the parents as well, or the children very well. My half brother sexually abused me for years without any of my family knowing, despite being close. He was imprisoned.

Lockedout434 Sat 16-Feb-13 23:43:46

Chris huhne protested his innocence until the 11th hour. For months he denied , ridiculed his wife and protested how innocent he was.
Jonathan aitkin had a sword if truth and a sheild of justice. They lied and lied and lied.
They were both castigated lost everything and held upto public ridicule , whereas roman Polanski ( 13 year old???) feted and looked after
People should be named it may help people join the dots.
Child abuse is the same as murder, if you are accused of murder it would still follow you around

poppypebble Sat 16-Feb-13 23:44:12

The other women raped by my rapist had been too frightened to report what had happened, they didn't think they would be believed and they believed his threats. To be completely honest had I been in a fit state to choose I don't think I would have reported it - but I was carted off to hospital in an ambulance as he damaged me just a bit too much and the people who found me thought I was dead. There was DNA evidence but he calmly sat in an interview room and said it had been consensual sex and that I'd asked him to be 'rough'. When the other women saw that he had been charged they felt like they would be believed and therefore came forward.

He did plead not guilty but the evidence of four women proved overwhelming in the end.

Casmama Sat 16-Feb-13 23:45:42

I could almost understand where you were moving from until I read the monumentally stupid:
"I know people feel they would want to know but surely you only let people you trust around your children"

Because human judgement is infallible isn't it, all we need o do is only let trustworthy people around our children and child abuse would disappear overnight hmm

Not really trying to achieve anything.

This is my life at the moment. Once a family member is accused this is your life. There is no support groups for families of accused and I have shut up fo nearly a year.

My children have been interviewed and schools spoken too. My life is a mess. Everyone from social services, school, friends and family have been great. But I have a hateful person making it sound like the whole family are child molesters to anyone who will listen. I am a bit upset really.

If I can't have a voice here then what is the internet for. I am allow a voice!

SirBoobAlot Sat 16-Feb-13 23:47:40

On the other side of this, something horrific happened to someone I know. We know who did it. Everyone knows this individual did it. Lives have been torn apart, completely shattered, and this bastard is wandering around without a care in the world before their court date.

Innocent until proven guilty, maybe, but there should be a "you are a dangerous sick fucker, we know you did it, and you are going to pay" option within that.

Andro Sat 16-Feb-13 23:51:08

Lockedout434 - and how do you propose that the accused deals with the fall out from an allegation proven to be malicious (and it does happen, false rape allegations etc)? People tend to forget that the malicious accuser may have been tried and punished...they don't forget the original allegation after it's been splattered across the local media! What about the person's wife? Children?

Sirboobalot -

Think we all feel that.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sat 16-Feb-13 23:52:37

you appear to believe the internet is for a load of people to agree with you about how outrageous this false allegation is. I have no idea of the truth of it and nor does anyone else reading this. frankly the more of your loopy posts I read the more inclined I am to think that anyone associated with you must be a bit dubious.
Really, just stop it. Let justice take its course. if the whole thing is the plapbale nonsense you claim it is, he'll be acquitted. This is not the place.

I am amazed if the CPS take on any child abuse case that does involve someone innocent, tbh.

Only because, as someone working in child services, i see child abusers and rapists not going to court, weekly, because the CPS won't allow the charges to be brought.

OP you shouldn't have discussed an ongoing case in such detail on a parenting site, different it it was a hypothetical situation.

Not nice if the family involved is on here.

There's something very off with this thread/poster.

How do you know your family member is innocent?

You talk about historical abuse having a higher conviction rate with contempt?

You talk about how four of the eight counts 'involved clothes' and the other four...???

This is about a child being sexually abused. I feel a bit ill tbh.

I will say this though: from bitter experience, abusers can very easily go unknown and undetected. And the police certainly don't swan around arresting people on a whim, or even because of one person's story.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sun 17-Feb-13 00:00:42

I've asked for this thread to be deleted. It's inappropriate for so many reasons.

No children involved apart from mine and social services the police have done there thing and not worried about my kids. They do know he is in my house regularly so long as until case over not with kids allow (bail conditions) on problem.

I am not stating any facts that are not already available to the public if anyone cared to find them. He was charged in an open court so charges out there plus her relation to him. She is older than me so no child. It is historic abuse so no dna, no hard evidence available to cps just statements. Which is normal for these cases.

Ok now abuse me again or lets help be get my head around reasons for and against press publishing arrests and charges.

Should say kids alone


Er if he's been charged with child abuse then his victim was a child, yes?

The abuse is alleged to off happened over 30 years ago when she was a child

ComposHat Sun 17-Feb-13 00:13:32

Having sat on a jury and observed the thought processes and rationale of some of my fellow jurors for reaching their verdict, I would argue that the judgement of the court is a pretty inaccurate way of ascertaining whether someone had committed an offence.

Well yes I understand that.

I got confused when you started saying there were no children involved and obviously the victim was a child at the time!

Anyway, I digress. My point is you don't know that your relative is innocent and in my experience it takes some doing to get a case like this to trial.

I'm not a "there's no smoke without fire" type but there would have to be reason for the police to think this person's story about your relative is true!

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Sun 17-Feb-13 00:18:34

There will have been pretty rigorous scrutiny of the evidence, including the complainant's credibility. The OP has been alleging on other threads some kind of polic vendetta. I leave you to draw your own conclusions. As I said, this thread is distasteful and I hope it will be gone by the time I get up tomorrow.

McNewPants2013 Sun 17-Feb-13 00:23:17

Can I asked what makes you belive he is innocent.

Don't you think it has taken this women alot of courage to report this alleged abuse that maybe damaged her childhood.

I am backing MN campaign of 'I belive you' so when a women says she had been raped I will belive her.

I am backing MN campaign of 'I belive you' so when a women says she had been raped I will belive her.

Excellent point.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OTTMummA Sun 17-Feb-13 00:32:32

I think you should probably up to your gp and ask for therapy if it us upsetting you this much op.
I would advise you to stop posting such details for your sake, these can make you very identifiable.
Are you in denial? Questioning wether you have placed your trust in the wrong person?
MN has an ' I believe you' stance, I give my support to anyone who says they have been abused, wether that is now or 30yrs ago.

Dromedary Sun 17-Feb-13 00:36:54

I'm guessing the OP is talking about her father. Must be very hard for her.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I'm bowing out.

I have been to doctor as 6 months ago it hit me hard. Shaking, head racing, not sleeping etc.... On pills for first time in my life.

Case to be held in the same place as my ABH and sexual assault case. Can not put into words how that makes me feel. Don't think they will get a word out of me on the day.

Hard to believe anyone that knows what I went through can do this.

McNewPants2013 Sun 17-Feb-13 00:49:42

So hand on your heart, would you trust him unsepervised with your children.

McNewPants2013 Sun 17-Feb-13 00:50:38


OTTMummA Sun 17-Feb-13 00:51:54

I don't think you are as sure of your opinion as you make out.
I feel sorry for you op, but I really think this is not the best place to come and talk specifics.

CoalDustWoman Sun 17-Feb-13 00:55:03

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal status that means that the Crown must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It I am sure that this must have been said alrey.

CoalDustWoman Sun 17-Feb-13 00:57:34

One is not innocent - one only innocent before the Crown.

chickensarmpit Sun 17-Feb-13 01:25:49

Yes! My brother and his friends were accused of rape my neighbour. She called the police and blabbed his name in the streets. He had a brilliant alibi. He was fighting for his country in Iraq. If he hadn't, he would of been dragged to the police station and finger printed. That bitch of a neighbour was not charged for lying. She has a serious mental disorder and continues to throw accusations of rape, racism etc.. Our lives are just peachy waiting for the next knock on the door from the police.

DeepRedBetty Sun 17-Feb-13 01:28:48

Wonderwoman I don't think you should be talking about this stuff here, there are people who feel pretty judgey for all sorts of very good reasons. Please get Victim Support and your GP on board. You're obviously very stressed out by all this.

Thank you for getting back on topic.

Innocent before Crown meaning until the crown says otherwise!

Not the media

I think that maybe none bias reporting would help. Report the fact and photo even but stop the gossip (a close family friend says this etc)

I was thinking no news coverage until found guilty but as one post pointed out some cases need past 'victims' (I hate that word but that is for another thread) to come forward.

Bogeyface Sun 17-Feb-13 01:45:23

I agree that someone is innocent until proven guilty. But releasing the name after conviction isnt always ok either imo.

My friend had a horrible situation where a family member was convicted of familial child abuse (it didnt involve her children thankfully, but very close child relatives) but because they have an unusual surname they were the subject of as much (if not more) gossip than the abuser.
They tried to keep his name out of the papers to protect the abused children who share his surname, but the judge refused. sad

Children are far more likely to be abused by a family member than a stranger, and it is horrible that their right to anonymity is removed because it is in the public interest to release the name of the abuser.

Bogeyface Sun 17-Feb-13 01:47:51

Wonder its sad but true that if the Jimmy Saville case hadnt had the coverage it did then many of his victims, who weren't believed or were too frightened to come forward, would have stayed silent.

Its so hard to balance it. Is it better to sacrifice the right to anonymity of victims (potentially) in order to uncover the full extent of an abusers crimes? Or do the proven victims deserve to keep what little privacy they have?

We were wondering at one stage if we could get a closed court (no media) but as the children are not involved in the case judge would probably say no. Only normally happens if the child is related to the abuser and still a child. If the media say father abused son and give fathers name everyone would no the victim.

Bogeyface Sun 17-Feb-13 01:58:49

Thats almost exactlywhat happened Wonder Everyone knew that he abused children in his family, so there was obviously gossip about which children it was, all of the victims were under 16, some were still under 10 sad

Sounds like in your case they should of had a closed court. I really feel for you. People don't understand the ripple effect on families.

The children in the family that where not abused have now also been badly affected in your example. The trouble is these cases need to be handled far more carefully than they currently are (by cps, police and media).

The abused have to come first of course but everyone else can not be fed to the dogs.

OP, you say you hate the word 'victims'. Really? If a child is raped, does that not make them a victim? Do you prefer the term survivor?

Isityouorme Sun 17-Feb-13 08:10:25

If you Google people who have been charged with child abuse, none of them seem innocent to me. Admittedly there are people who lie. How will you feel if your relative is found guilty .... Will you just think he has had an unfair conviction? You don't know what the evidence is against him at the moment? You are putting lots of faith in his innocence and based on other cases, you will get hurt.

People dealing with child Abuse have a hard job, listening to accounts of what happened, seeing photos, watching videos etc. they would be justified in feeding convicted child abuser's to the dogs IMO.

HollyBerryBush Sun 17-Feb-13 08:13:43

What will you do, OP, if your relative is found guilty? You seem to have invested a lot of emotional input into him being found not guilty.

TheFallenNinja Sun 17-Feb-13 08:21:55

I think that there is a complete misunderstanding of the term arrest.

The broad belief is that people get arrested because they are guilty when this is not the case. How often do you hear the threat "I'll have you arrested"

Arrest as I understand it is simply holding someone to administer the law, not to determine guilt. Equally, the police aren't there to pass judgement, they are there to gather evidence when an accusation has been made. The decision to prosecute is with the CPS and the power of judgement is with the courts.

BumpingFuglies Sun 17-Feb-13 08:45:54

What happens if the accused has already been convicted of similar offences? Does that negate their rights to anonymity? And does it change perceptions of guilt before trial? My thoughts would be yes.

Isityouorme Sun 17-Feb-13 09:09:18

The OP says her relative has been charged which means there is sufficient evidence to warrant it going to court. That is more serious than just being arrested.

StrawberriesTasteLikeLipsDo Sun 17-Feb-13 09:46:51

DHs grandfathers partner has found herself in this type of situation. Her son has been charged with sexual abuse of his wife's DGD. He was discovered when she (the dgd) told
Her nan. Police found images o her in the shower as well as other inappropriate images. He reckons he has been framed.. Not even remotely believable is it?

Despite this his mother (DH grandads partner) has allowed him to move in with her, and DH GD has actively chosen him over his own family, for example when MIL said he was not welcome in her house (as we have DC who regularly visit, and SIL only 16) the grandfather was aggrieved.

I think the GD goes along with his partner for an easy life ( he has history of rather shameful behaviour IMO) and I guess she wants to see the best in him as her son.
Ive not met him but the family that have, at the time this came out, all commented on how they "knew he was strange"... I on the other hand never warmed to the partner and can honestly say, that even though it is wrong, this has coloured my view of her.

They are a strange

StrawberriesTasteLikeLipsDo Sun 17-Feb-13 09:48:34

...bunch but this does go to show what i think is a widespread opinion / reaction to this type of offence

hermioneweasley Sun 17-Feb-13 09:55:24

If there is enough evidence to charge and bring a prosecution then I would judge that person and never let them near my kids.

Soldatauction -Survivor is a much better word than victim. To call someone a victim when they have stood up and been so strong to speak out is wrong. Still I would maybe say I survived my abusive marriage but I am a person who experienced domestic violence. A bit of a mouthful I know. Maybe its just me and the V word.

Understandable hermioneweasley but what if I was 'say' your sister. What if her work meant she was not there during this period of time. That the only way that this abuse was possible would be for yourself to be a couple of years younger than you are.

I would never have someone in my home that I was not sure about. Social services would not allow that to happen for a start. They have no problem with him being around my children. The police bail says not allow with children under 16. That will stay until court.

Should say not allowed alone with children under 16

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 17-Feb-13 21:52:47

Evening. Thanks to those who've reported this thread.

wonderwoman2012, we do sympathise with your situation but we do have to warn you that anything you post on Mumsnet - which is an open, Google-indexed forum - could be used in evidence in any ongoing court proceedings.

We're also worried that your posts may inadvertently reveal information that could identify members of your family. We've deleted one post from this thread for you, as a precaution.

We'll drop you a line to explain further...

Helen what do you lovely HQ types think of the thread with regard to MN's We Believe You stance?

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 17-Feb-13 22:12:47


Helen what do you lovely HQ types think of the thread with regard to MN's We Believe You stance?

We would stand by our pledge to say 'we believe you' to those reporting abuse.

That doesn't mean we can't also feel sympathy for family members who are struggling to deal with the fallout.

I would always feel sympathy too, there's always so many more victims of crimes like this than most people comprehend.

However, some of the posts have been a little uncomfortable to read. I haven't reported but I may do now, so you can see what I'm talking about! smile

Ah - seems they've already disappeared! HQ is too fast for me! blush smile

AmberLeaf Sun 17-Feb-13 22:41:25

Why are you so sure he hasn't done what he is accused of OP?

OTTMummA Sun 17-Feb-13 23:43:14

Mmmm, strange, just finished reading this

AnyFucker Sun 17-Feb-13 23:53:26


HQ believes OP has the right to keep using MN as a pedestal to garner support for someone accused of heinous crimes, and will not delete the thread (only identifying details)

Then I am using my right to tell her to get the fuck off here, and stop making repeated appeals for support and sympathy for the accused

you are very soon going to make your family member googleable, if you haven't already

let the justice system run its course

it mainly fails the victims, so your family member has the odds stacked for him/her

Narked Mon 18-Feb-13 00:55:26

Helen, 'dealing with the fall out'????

This poster has accused the victim of lying out of spite, of having made previous allegations etc etc.

As far as you can get from 'we believe you.'

Cortana Mon 18-Feb-13 01:32:01

Agreed Narked, between the rubbishing of the victim as exact dates can't be remembered to accusing her of being after money it's disgusting these posts are allowed to stand.

Yes innocent until proven guilty. But this man hasn't been in court yet. Until then, nothing has been proved, doesn't mean plastering what is becoming more and more of an identifiable case all over Mumsnet helping.

OP never seems to ask for emotional support. Just reams off over and over why the accused is innocent and what a lying piece of work the victim is. A wise poster on another thread pointed out that OP has been colluding with witnesses, not even "We believe you" but it seems like there will be little chance for a fair trial for the victim.

dottyspotty2 Mon 18-Feb-13 02:05:16

If there's not enough evidence cps won't even take it to court I'm biased always believe the child children don't tend to lie about these things.

I reported my brother and personally believe if there's a strong case that once they've been charged not just accused they should be named at present its hit and miss he wasn't named until he had been sentenced which to me was wrong as if they're where other victims it prevented them coming forward before the trial.

dottyspotty2 Mon 18-Feb-13 02:08:10

And not being found guilty doesn't always mean innocent clever barristers can twist absolutely everything its what they're paid for its alway down to if they can win the jury over or not.

dottyspotty2 Mon 18-Feb-13 02:16:07

I've read through some of your posts and believe me it isn't easy to get an historical case to court probably easier to get a current case to court actually. As very rarely do historical cases have evidence to corroborate the abuse.

YNK Mon 18-Feb-13 02:34:44

If Childrens Services tell you someone needs to be supervised around children I would not be encouraging any contact until the case is over!
Likewise if I knew someone had been charged with abusing women or children I would not want to go out on a date with them.
The risks are just too high to expose me or my children to any potential harm.
Sorry OP, this may not be what you want to hear, but I would proceed with great caution and try to keep an open mind to the fact that abusers can operate under the radar.

Buzzardbird Mon 18-Feb-13 05:22:32

Can't believe this hasn't been pulled. Horrible accusations at possible victim. I do understand the op needing support but the victim has as much right to be believed as the accused surely?

(1) Social services have not said only supervised visits. They came they interviewed everyone they arranged to meet him and they did GP, school checks. Then said no case for them and end of.

(2) Police have given him not to be allow with under 16 as on going case. They could of said no contact with children at all but didn't. You would have to meet my family to understand that.

(3) I have now been the abused and a member of the abused family. I come at this from both places so have very mixed views on media and police handling of these cases. I am still not sure myself.

(4) I may come across as a know it all or having an agenda but I am really very interested in all your views. I have a lot of stuff in my head at the moment so if I offend I do not mean too.

(5) As I can't give details here I know people will not believe he is a good person but that is something that is your right.

(6) I do believe one police officer is in the wrong job. However you get this in all walks of life. In this case the guilty could walk free or the innocent could go to prison, so very not on.

(7)I have been given some forum names that are for people in my situation. To be honest the abuse on here is better than the hand holding of else where. I may have to stand in the same crown court that I did for the assault on me. The comments here may make me cry but they do help to toughen me for what is to come.

simplesusan Mon 18-Feb-13 22:40:39

I know people feel they would want to now but surely you only let people you trust around your children.

So it is the parents fault if their child is abused then is it?


Lots of vile people appear as charm personified.

Yes, I really would want to know if someone around me had been accused of abusing a child. I put the safety of my child above the reputation of people like your relative.

YNK Mon 18-Feb-13 22:41:01

(2) Police have given him not to be allow with under 16 as on going case. They could of said no contact with children at all but didn't. You would have to meet my family to understand that.

That is supervised contact - no???

simplesusan Mon 18-Feb-13 22:42:35

I know people feel they would want to now but surely you only let people you trust around your children.

This was quoted from the op's post.

dottyspotty2 Mon 18-Feb-13 23:07:12

No bail conditions in child abuse usually say only supervised contact with children not no contact.

Only normal stipulation is no contact with alleged victim or family.

dottyspotty2 Mon 18-Feb-13 23:09:15

FWIW 99% of abusers are seemingly good people it's how they get away with it often for years.

simplesusan - not saying it would be parents fault but most abuse happens within the home. At school, kids clubs etc there are checks. One would hope to god that the teacher was not a abuser who has not been caught. Once bailed they would not be able to work with kids anyway.

If a family member was accused I would of thought most people would do what we have done.

Take stock of the situation -What they are accused of, what the evidence is, what you know about both parties (I know in some cases you would not know both parties), what the police and social services are saying, take time and made the best decision for your family.

I would not ever put my children at risk (what mother would). My children older two children are aware of allegations and are dealing with them in a very adult way. They are the only two that would be allow alone with the accused because of their age.

You are putting your children at risk because you don't know that he's innocent.

Even if it goes to court and he is found not guilty according to some mums that have posted he is still guilty. There never let near children again.

I just think it is down to my self and my hubby to be guided by what they think is best. There is no right answer my children would be horrified if we cut said person out of there lives.

dottyspotty2 Tue 19-Feb-13 00:05:41

O what happens if he is found guilty will you still stand by him difficult question I know but I was ostracised by my own mother and brother for doing the right thing.

When I went to court there was no guarantee of him being found guilty if he had been found not guilty didn't take away what he had done to me all those years ago that's all I'm saying about the courts.

There will all ways be great fall out with cases of family abuses. Some family will take one side and some another. Your own experience sound horrid to loss a mother and a brother.

In our case I can only say what will be will be. I am growing to understand that. I trust him, the evidence, knowledge accuser and the advice I have received. I know some people want to say I am wrong. We can only see.

I have been shook in many ways by this but I still say unless you no the details of the case only the judge and jury get to sentence someone. Not the press or public.

My view on no media coverage until found guilty has changed however. If printing names leads to more survivors reporting rape or assault then name have to be printed. I do think that press hearsay and gossip about these named people should not happen unless found guilty.

simplesusan Tue 19-Feb-13 10:33:08

You are wrong to believe that crb checks are fool proof. Ian Huntley was allowed to work with children and yet he had committed many crimes against children and was violent with adults too.
The fact is that unless you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison, then nothing is disclosed about you.
Ian Huntley was acquitted of rape, that does not mean he didn't do it.
How on earth are parents supposed to know that someone is trustworthy?

Just because he might be regarded as a pillar of the local community doesn't mean anything. It is hard enough as it is for parents without clouding the view anymore.
Yes sometimes there is a witch hunt. Other adults take a more sensible approach. That is the risk with naming the accused.
I personally know a rational woman who until very recently defended Jimmy Saville. She knew him and was quite adament that the "stories" of abuse were lies. We all know how that turned out.

ComposHat Tue 19-Feb-13 11:05:14

simplesusan almost everything you have written is factually incorrect. I don't anyone sensible thinks or expects a CRB to be a cast iron guarantee that a person isn't a sex offender.

Ian Huntley was allowed to work with children and yet he had committed many crimes against children and was violent with adults too He was investigated but not convicted, the only offence he was ever convicted of was a motoring offence. He was also given his job, before CRB checks were introduced.

The fact is that unless you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison, then nothing is disclosed about you

You are wrong. Any cautions and convictions are recorded against you will appear on a standard CRB check. An advanced disclosure will include any information held by Police or other agencies that didn't result in a conviction. Whether this is right or fair is a matter of debate. My view is that this is dangerous, as unfounded allegations that were never put before a jury could be used to disbar a person from a job, or make an employer think twice.

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