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?

Good old Mumsnet!

I've never come across so many people who think 'Let's give all defendants a fair trial' means 'De-criminalise rape NOW!'

And the frightening thing is that almost every Mumsnet member is eligible for jury service.

And methinks some people choose very appropriate usernames.

I didn't hear anyone say that DLT et al aren't entitled to a fair trial, Suzanne.

Viviennemary, you've got a good point, however, in these instances it is not necessary to be able to recall just 'when' it happened.

If enough people come to the attention of police independently and a pattern of behaviour is established then it moves from being 'he said, she said' to "he says, they say". The timing of the event then becomes less important because there is consistency amongst a group of people who otherwise have no knowledge of one another. Thus ruling out 'co-incidence' or conspiracy.

oh dear touched a nerve??

hardly the witiest of insults bearing in mine I chose my username myself.

terrortree but when the media jump on the bandwagon, there are very few people who are not aware of the alleged when's and how's before cases ever get to court, and very few people who have kept an open mind. Just reading this thread, there are people who already believe that these individuals are guilty or innocent and even those who seem to believe that everyone accused is guilty or innocent, whether is evidence to the contrary or not. This is why I do believe in anonimity for the accused and victim of any alleged crime util after a trial.

Billy I agree wholeheartedly. I have long thought anonymity a good idea. Very difficult nowadays especially with social media.

I'm quite harsh in my view, if you were "just" groped on the breast 40 years ago then you need to let it go! Move on, and I think this is the band wagon part

However, if made to perform a sex act, raped etc then obviously however long it is important to report it and those responsible brought to justice.

itispersonal that is my perspective too - I don't think you're being harsh at all

So you get to decide exactly what merits legal action?

It seems a number of people are confused by a defendant's right to remain silent throughout the trial, sitting there as merely as a dumb spectator while the prosecution presents its evidence, and with neither himself nor his legal representatives presenting a single jot of evidence on his behalf.

While that is indeed his right, it will almost invariably lead to a conviction unless the prosecution evidence is as weak as water (which it usually isn't, of course).

A court will weigh the evidence (we've all heard that expression) and if there's some on the prosecution's side of the scale and none on the defence's side, a conviction is very likely to ensue.

We've all seen fictional cases where the defence is desperately trying to find a missing witness or a vital piece of evidence in the absence of which the accused is going to be sent to meet his maker, haven't we?

And yet many a Mumsnet member would say with a huge smile to that defendant "Don't worry, old chap. It's okay. The law doesn't require you to present any evidence in your defence".

That Mumsnet member is right, of course. You don't have to present any evidence in your defence. The snag is that you'll almost certainly be convicted if you don't.

itispersonal I agree.

I think this thread is showing that people are assuming they're guilty in some sort of sisterly solidarity thought.

Someone said Michael from Corrie got away with it. He didn't, he's innocent as proven in court.

the difference is the defendant and his team can make up any old evidence the like with no requirement to prove it's true

and no one is found innocent in court - which the judge in the Le Vell trial made clear in his statements after the verdict - not guilty does not mean innocent and in the case of sex offenders and child abuse - regardless of actual verdict SS are supposed to put plans in place to minimise the risk posed to the public based on probability.

Most Mumsnet members are quite rightly very much against sexual abuse but there does seem to be a small yet vociferous minority (probably sitting there unwashed in a house full of cats) who believe all defendants in sexual abuse cases are guilty and that those found 'not guilty' have somehow managed to get away with their crimes.

On another thread on the topic of sexual abuse, one of those charming little souls stated as a fact that all men are 'diseased'.

While every rational person supports a woman's right to go through life unmolested, extreme feminists that quite clearly hate men are giving rational feminists a very bad name.

"While every rational person supports a woman's right to go through life unmolested, extreme feminists that quite clearly hate men are giving rational feminists a very bad name."

extreme feminists that hate men seem to me to be a bit like The Abominable Snowman. Nobody's actually seen one, but lots of people know somebody who knows somebody who has definitely seen one!

not guilty does not mean innocent

It means innocent with regard to what the law presumes.

The law presumes us all to be innocent of any and every crime until proven guilty, so it must follow that if we're not found guilty, the presumption of innocence that existed at the start of the trial continues for evermore.

A person tried and found not guilty of a crime is presumed in law to be as innocent as everybody else in the world who hasn't been convicted of that crime.

Extreme feminists that hate men . . . Nobody's actually seen one

I've seen several.

Not a pretty sight (usually).

I'd need proper photographic evidence.

Anyway, using the term in the context of this thread is just a bit....silly, don't you think?

I don't think the CPS prosecute cases that they don't think they can win. So there must be evidence. Much more dreadful to be the victim of abuse and accused of 'jumping on a bandwagon', really.

Using the term in the context of this thread is just a bit....silly, don't you think?

There are people on this thread (and elsewhere on Mumsnet) who appear to believe that alleged sex offenders are not entitled to receive a fair trial, and who often become personally insulting to anyone who suggests that such people should receive a fair trial.

I can think of many words to describe such people but they do appear to fall in the 'extreme feminist' category so I don't think it's silly to say so.

Are there? I haven't seen any.

I don't think the CPS prosecute cases that they don't think they can win. So there must be evidence.

In sexual abuse cases, it's quite common for there to be no evidence other than the alleged victim's account of what is alleged to have happened.

In many cases, the alleged victim is telling the Gospel truth but in other cases, she (or indeed he) is not - and without a single solitary shred of evidence apart from the alleged victim's testimony, such cases are very difficult for juries to deal with.