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?

Is it SuzanneUK? I wonder why?

Ooh, ooh, miss, I know this one, miss. Is it because the victims of housebreaking are never blamed for having an attractive house just where a burglar is bound to see it? Because women who have their handbag snatched are not blamed for having the bad judgement to carry a bag in the first place? Because it's rarely assumed that murder victims must have done something to deserve being bumped off?

Or it may be because when someone is lying on the pavement with a knife in their back, no-one tells them not to make a fuss as it was only a bit of fun.

Annie Thank you. I didn't have the strength.

Annie- I think I love you!

I think it very brave of the women coming forward.

It has made headlines and imagine what these women have to face, walking into any shop that sells newspaper seeing their abusers face plaster all over the front cover.

Yes there are some women who do make up sexual abuse, but that is rare.

I'm certainly not implying it is bullshit, but it worries me that it could be so easy to make up a spurious claim while the momentum of inquiries is rushing ahead. Even if proved innocent, these men will struggle to shake off the accusations. What was thought acceptable then perhaps isn't now - do we judge by 1970's or 20teen's standards? Which is better or more correct? Seeing DLT with his arms draped nonchalantly around the shoulders of teenage girls on TOTP didn't look creepy to me then & still doesn't now except the girls' faces are now greyed out on screen

If we believe the evidence against DLT, then we believe he groped, felt and otherwise generally touched-up a good many adult women in decades gone by.

That's almost certainly true because I've yet to meet a heterosexual male star from the music/TV/radio industry that didn't grope, feel and generally touch-up a good many adult women at the peak of his career.

Unfortunately for DLT, some of those women are now coming forward to say they weren't happy about it at the time.

One thing's for sure, if the Jimmy Savile had affair had never blown up, the police would have told all the women in the DLT case that there was nothing they could do about it after all this time.

And another sure thing is that if every woman who was groped, felt and generally touched-up against her will in the late 20th Century came forward now, there'd be a queue 10 miles long outside every police station in the country.

And another sure thing is that if every woman who was groped, felt and generally touched-up against her will in the late 20th Century came forward now, there'd be a queue 10 miles long outside every police station in the country. As there would if every woman who was raped came forward and reported. Are you saying that we should all put up with sexual assault?

So that makes it ok then does it?

Of course it's easy to make up a spurious claim. It's a little more difficult, however, to prove it in a court of law.

How about waiting until the verdict before deciding whether they should be pitied for suffering the effects of unjust accusation? Because, you know, they just might be guilty, in which case you will have wasted a lot of worry unnecessarily.

Anniegetyourgun.
Again. If they get a not guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime didn't happen it just means there is not enough evidence.

The biggest problem is the media. They've already decided who is guilty in every case and go all out to smear that persons name. Then found not guilty or whatever but it's too late by then-damage is done. The gullible stupid public believe what they're told. I'm not just talking about Op Yewtree but almost every widely reported crime usually before all the facts are known.

Without wishing to perjure myself, I thought they were all weird, the whole BBC pop-tastic brigade, I could never understand any earthly reason why young people would listen to their shows or find them entertaining in any way. In fact I would say that these people did quite a lot for the 1980s music scene because they failed so spectactularly to represent young people that young people did their own thing, set up their own record labels and radio stations. I hated hearing their voices, seeing their awkward suits and fake smiles, that was from the age of about 8. It was partly the half-baked americanish accent that made them seem utterly untrustworthy.

Whatever was going on at the BBC it was very nasty, ingrained and incestuous. It shouldn't have happened and I hope we can learn something from it.

Are you saying that we should all put up with sexual assault?

No.

So that makes it ok then does it?

No.

If they get a not guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime didn't happen it just means there is not enough evidence.

And they get a guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime did happen. It just means there is not enough defence evidence.

I'm not any kind of legal person but I do wonder that how can it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that these events happened so long ago. When it can't even be pinpointed exactly when they happened.

It's important to remember that we're generally not talking about adult women. And sexual contact with children was unacceptable in the 70s too.

And they get a guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime did happen. It just means there is not enough defence evidence. Bullshit. That is not how the criminal justice system works. Guilt has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is assumed.

That doesn't mean that there are no bad guilty verdicts but there are far fewer than not guilty people who have committed the crime. That being one of the basic tenets of the British justice system.

Because Vivienne it is beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt. Yes, 50 women could randomly and independently make up stories with similar MOs about DLT but it would be such a stretch to think that was possible that it is beyond a reasonable doubt. In the same way that DNA evidence is only 99 point something accurate but we assume it is most likely, especially with corroborating evidence, to be accurate.

YABU.

The odds are stacked against the victim, who has to prove their case in a court of law - and that's after managing to get the cps to agree to prosecute the case.

Whereas the defendant/accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

it's practically impossible to prove historic sexual abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, victims and their families have their lives shattered - I should know.

Not guilty does not mean innocent. It's a guilty of lying verdict for the victim in the eyes of many though.

^
And another sure thing is that if every woman who was groped, felt and generally touched-up against her will in the late 20th Century came forward now, there'd be a queue 10 miles long outside every police station in the country.^

And maybe that would be a good thing - it might mean men think twice before groping, feeling and touching someone against their will. Or even better, maybe not even think about doing it at all.

And they get a guilty verdict it doesn't mean the crime did happen. It just means there is not enough defense evidence.

In our system, which I believe is based on yours, it's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is not required to prove anything. Unfortunately, I have heard people who were on juries state that the defendant didn't "prove his innocence." That makes me very sad.