@StapMe
Sami - if innocent until proven guilty is not relevant in real life, how do we deal with those accused of crime? Bang 'em all up anyway without looking into what they're supposed to have done? Let them go Scot free? Or shall we go back to trial by endurance?
Do you not see the difference between being on a jury and being on Mumsnet?
On Mumsnet, or in everyday life, or on another forum it's ok (and normal) to say on balance it seems far more likely that this woman was trafficked and abused as a child than not.
Even if you think you'd be unable to prove that beyond reasonable doubt in court and return a guilty verdict.
You're so worryingly intent on making a level playing field out of false equivalence. A vulnerable young woman being taken to countries as a minor to 'massage' rich, powerful men says she was sexually assaulted by those men. Those men who wanted a massage off a young woman. On balance, you think it unlikely she was trafficked and abused? You think it equally likely those men really did 'just' get a massage? Or that they didn't meet her at all despite photographic evidence they did? Really?! Jesus wept.
As for your 'what about the men' comments, shame on you bringing up a vanishingly rare case of a woman meeting the threshold for lying about a rape as a reason not to believe victims.
Your posts on this thread have been as embarrassing as they have shocking.
I wonder if you read those links people shared upthread? If so, perhaps share your thoughts on them and people won't accuse you of being on a mission to discredit women. Because you'd have shown an actual interest in listening and learning about trafficking and child sexual abuse, rather than fixating on innocent until proven guilty when you're not in a courtroom.