to worry about the accused?

[WitchWay]

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?

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, and I totally agree that the victims must be supported in every way.

But I think in these high profile cases sometimes people were fans of these celebrities for years and are so disappointed to have been mistaken in them. I am thinking of Rolf Harris. I grew up with him, i liked his quirkiness. It really makes me sad. Well I guess we would like to find out it was not true in these cases, but that is no excuse for disbelieving the victims.

Wedding - the witness statement is often the main evidence in a rape trial - in the absence of any physical evidence. This is why rape myths -such as 'women often lie about rape,' 'she's a slag,' 'she was wearing a short skirt' etc - are so damaging.

This is also why the naming of the accused is so important - rapists are very often serial offenders - corroborating evidence from unrelated, independent witnesses is so, so important here. Giving other victims a chance to come forward is often vital to convicting serial rapists like John Worboys.

Suzanne, we all know that post doesn't exist - otherwise you'd have posted/pm'd it.

Personal vendettas? Seriously

You accused people of being extreme man hating feminists. And somehow asking you to back up the accusation is a vendetta?

What Sabrina said.

Any need for the passive aggressiveness Nice?

I was on the thread earlier and have now rejoined...no I have not read every post in between.

It really does come across that you are looking for an arguement and purposefully provoking.

andrew lancel judges commments

I remember this - it stuck in my mind because it was similar to something else I had seen, where the not guilty verdict had been reach because the historic nature of the events made it impossible to pin down dates, but the judge here clearly believed the victim.

I was really impressed, it was the first time I had seen a judge explain a verdict so well, and in a manner that must have provided the victim with at least a modicum of comfort that he had been believed.

The defendant was acquitted on the evidence, and rightly so, but it is important that the complainant who is clearly scarred by an experience, should understand that the jury verdicts does not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.

It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago.

Yes wedding, thinking again.

The reason men like reid, warboys, saville, et al and more, were able to go on raping for so long was because it was his word against hers.

Each individual who went to the police was told - no - it's not getting anywhere - it's your word against his - are you sure you aren't making it up? - go home.

That is one way of approaching sexual assault and rape cases, certainly. And it gets good results, for both the police, and serial rapists. Discouraging people from reporting sexual assaults, and failing to investigate or link them when they are reported, is one way of doing it.

I think we can do a bit better than that though, surely.

since the Soham murders and the introduction of the PND, all of these accusations, all over the country - can be linked, if they are reported, and if the police officer in the case bothers to check.

The issue is there could be 100 reports, or even 1000 reports, and that could not be mentioned in court unless there had been a guilty verdict.

What? Is that sarcasm or...

?

It's not passive aggressive to point out that I have already answered a question you ask, upthread.

And actually, on a thread like this, it is really important to read all the posts, I think. You never know what people might have said.

I think we should clarify that, in the Michael le Vell case, the judge did not say he believed the alleged victim.

fccukk YY Soham. the reaction to that was ridiculous.

All this stuff about getting people who work in schools etc vetted.

He would have passed.

Because he had no criminal record. he had a STRING of accusations of rape & sexual assault against him in a range of cities including many underage girls & vulerable girls. It was never linked.

The new laws re. checking would not spot it.

I think they should bloody share this stuff and if a man has been repeatedly accused of sex crimes in different cities by women who don't know each other then they need to have a fucking word. If they had linked all that up then the girls might have testified (given they had gone to the police) and he would not have been free to murder those girls.

I simply do not understand why the forces are not saying, come give us names, so they can look for patterns and catch people like him sooner. I really don't get it.

And actually, on a thread like this, it is really important to read all the posts, I think. You never know what people might have said.

Oh, that made me laugh so much.

Because even after reading all the posts, it seems Nicetabard doesn't have a clue what people have said.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go to A & E to have my sides stitched up.

See you tomorrow.

Suzanne Thank you but I had ALREADY clarified that and provided the correct name and link.

Huntley would now fail an enhanced CRB check, it would be flagged up that he had been arrested you have to be arrested, for the PNC, but for the PND, a force can hold an item of interest and it can be disclosed in the right circumstances.

Wedding

You said

What is the answer then Nice?

I said I had said my initial thoughts upthead. In a list.

So...

Um

You want me to cut and paste for you? You know you can search on my name...

You better copy and paste, NiceTabard.

Wedding, I answered your question too. At 00:35.

That is good I guess.

I think though really that they need to have an amnesty and get names from everyone, and take it from there. They would get many dangerous people off the streets. What has happened with JS is an amnesty on 70s/80s personalities, basically. And there is enough evidence to take lots to court.

They need to do that exercise with the general public. The more I think about it the more I think it would do a lot of good.

That was in response to fcukk

Thanks nice.

I really needed that summary. Due to being a moron and all.

Well done you. Seriously, gold star for wit.

Not particularly helpful to the thread but you've tried to belittle yet another poster so full points on that one.

People have responded to your questions, wedding? And are met with antagonism?

???

What are your views on the checks done in schools / amnesty idea?

I am not sure what you are responding to, TBH.

What about the cross-examination thing? Is that what you are responding to?

Anywhoo...off to bed.

Will be hiding this as I won't be bothered enough I won't have the time to trail through another ten pages tomorrow before daring to question the righteous few more active posters.

Night. Enjoy your bun fight debate.

I think some people on here see stuff as a simple point-scoring exercise.

Not something that is relevant in their life, just a point scoring exercise.

You all need to remember that people you are talking to may have been affected by the things you are so glib about.

On MN, with a predominantly female membership, and 1 in 4 women having been raped, this is not some kind of academic exercise.

There have been thread after thread on here, with hundreds of women telling their experiences and how they never reported them.

That is the backdrop you are talking to.

MN campaign is "We Believe You" and that is what most posters on MN agree with. People who experience sexual violence should be believed. As a basic.

People who go against that basic principle, on here, will be rebuffed. Full stop.