Hunton1
In this case, there are 2 women. They must both be lying then. Women are always lying bitches, innit?
There's a local case in particular that has formed my opinion on this sort of thing. In one case a teacher was questioned on suspicion of possessing child porn.
There's no such thing as child porn, it is more accurately termed child abuse images. Pro-porn lobbyists insist that porn is undertaken by consenting adults.....
^6 months later - having not been able to leave his house for fear of getting mobbed - the CPS got around to actually charging him and taking the case to court. Whereupon he was found innocent, because they hadn't done due diligence on the intelligence they had received, and it transpired his card details had been skimmed and used fraudulently, which explained why they could find no evidence of him actually ever accessing or possessing this porn on any computer he had access to, nor anything untoward in the extensive search of his house.
There was no evidence in fact, except the FBI saying his card details had popped up on a server they'd seized. And realistically, how much of an idiot do you have to be to use your own card details to buy something illegal?^
People do it all the time, it's how they get caught.
That list should have been assumed to be full of fraudulent transactions from the off.
Why? Why would the police in 2 countries have had to assume this? Surely they should look into the obvious culprits first, rather than waste time looking for ghosts?
The Police are shockingly bad at "cyber crime", and how it took the CPS 6 months to bring a case to court when they only had one piece of evidence I will never know.
I would assume that your friend's case wasn't the only one handed over by the FBI. 6 Months to wade through mountains of evidence, hours of sickening pictures and videos seems pretty reasonable to me.
They ruined his life based on a piece of evidence that an expert witness took apart in 5 minutes.
The CPS and the police didn't ruin his life. The fraudster who used his card details ruined his life, the newspapers which hounded him ruined his life. The Police and the CPS followed guidelines designed to stop people who take, post and pay for images of child sexual abuse.
The case was thrown out in under 5 hours FFS. But I digress.
^Nevertheless, in that period, the shameful behaviour of the local gossip rags had made his position utterly untenable and he had to move away. That is UTTERLY unacceptable in my mind, to be forced out of a job simply because of a (false) accusation, whether it be rape, child porn, child molesting (not that I conflate possession of porn as being even remotely as serious as actual abuse, but the media generally lumps it all together).
That sort of thing sticks with you.
"So why did you leave your last post?"
"Aaaaah, would you believe me if I said I fancied a new challenge?"^
You are aware that images of child abuse are taken by people molesting and harming children, aren't you? Your friend wasn't forced out of his job because of a false accusation of anything, he was accused, charged and then tried for possessing images of child abuse, which is a charge incompatible with his profession. He was no doubt asked to step down, or suspended, in accordance with his LA's policy for this sort of thing. The fact that a couple of newspapers decided that he was guilty is neither the Police, CPS nor his employer's fault. The great thing about him having gone to trial is that he was exonerated, with actual proof, so all he does is tell the truth, and he will be able to back that up.
Now that's a toughie, because clearly it's inappropriate for him to be teaching in the interim - pending trial - but equally, the rags shouldn't be able to smear his name through the mud just because he's on a precautionary leave of absence. He has a right to his family life, his privacy, and his reputation, which should be left intact until such a time as a guilty verdict is reached. No one has the right to go taking photos through his windows of him and his kids having breakfast, which is exactly what one of the grubby local papers did.
He does have a right to family life, and privacy, he doesn't have a right to teach in those circumstances. As I've said, and I don't think anyone would disagree, the newspaper who are the culprits here shouldn't have done what they did.
You can see why I automatically feel some sympathy for the accused. Because they are the accused, and NOTHING ELSE until they are tried and found guilty.
I can see that you have some sympathy for your friend, yes.
It's not "rape culture" to treat someone as innocent until they are proven guilty. That is in fact the entire premise of our whole legal system. If there's an idea that they pose a threat to the public, remand without bail remains an option.
It is rape culture, I'm afraid. It has little to do with innocent until proven guilty.
I think he did get some compo from one of the nasty little rags which had crossed the line well into both harassment and libel territory, but that hardly makes up for a shattered reputation and having to move house. Unsurprisingly he was pretty pissed with both the CPS and the media and didn't pull any punches when it came to attacking their handling of the whole sorry affair.
If he continued to be pissed off at the CPS, he was directing his ire to the wrong people.
^My view is anything to do with child porn, child abuse or rape should carry an automatic media ban, making it contempt of court to report that someone is being investigated until such a time as a guilty verdict is reached. This topic for instance, would constitute contempt.
Unless the judge is convinced there may be other victims and a media appeal is the best way to encourage others to come forward, then no one should know you've been investigated or even charged.^
Then your opinion is wrong, as has been shown by Yewtree.
Nigel Evans has expressed this sentiment recently after he was found entirely innocent after months of press speculation, and hopefully something may come of it.
In fact he's even written an article in the Spectator about exactly this, given he was in Mr Sullivan's position not so long ago.
Supposedly you are innocent until proven guilty, but on the internet, with social media (exactly like this, people posting around notices on forums when no charge has even been brought), these sorts of accusations have a habit of sticking, even if nothing comes of them. "He was never charged, but there was this incident ten years back, no smoke without fire, I'd steer clear if I were you". Which is actually libellous, but it kind of follows people around after such events.
This bit has already been addressed. Your friend was charged, and found to be innocent of those charges. Would you rather he hadn't been? That, despite him being in a role which would give him unsupervised contact with children, and charged with having downloaded child abuse images, he should have been allowed to stay in that role? That the CPS should have just dismissed it all out of hand, because 'everyone knows that people use stolen credit card details on these things'?
If you are in a position of authority, and are charged with/arrested for crimes of a violent or sexual nature, you should step down from that role until such time as the CPS decide not to prosecute or you are found 'not guilty'. This has fuck all to do with your human rights, and everything to do with understanding the dynamics of power and your place in them.