Commuter who walked past actress at Waterloo station cleared of 'bizarre' sex assault claim

[LurkingHusband]

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/commuter-who-walked-past-actress-at-waterloo-station-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-claim/ar-BBpcZ5y

A commuter has been cleared of sexually assaulting a well-known actress after a jury rejected claims the crime could have taken place in a brief half-second contact in a busy railway station.

Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist and picture framer, was accused of brushing against the actress, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in a mass of train passengers at London’s Waterloo station.

CCTV footage showed Mr Pearson, who was a complete stranger to the alleged victim, did not break his stride as he walked past the woman, who was heading to a rehearsal.

(contd)

Not really much to say . I'm pleased the CPS will "respect the juries decision". The fact they had to state that implies there have been or will be times when they don't accept the juries decision.

[var123]

about being punched typo!

[DrSeussRevived]

Eh?

Why are you now talking about 1000 false claims in a month when your previous assertion was this instance made it harder for women to be believed?

Would it ever be said that "this 60-something person's claim makes 60-somethings harder to believe?" Or "this well off person's claim makes well-off people harder to believe?"

I doubt it. And yet both of those sun groups are smaller % of the adult population than the 50% group which is women. Yet generalisations about this characteristic from one or a few instances are the norm.

Funny, that.

[DrSeussRevived]

And 1000 false claims to a single policeman (or police officer, rather)? Gosh, what a busy bee.

[var123]

I was trying to explain to you how false claims can prejudice future cases using extreme examples.

I think you just want to relate this to a gender issue which I find equally hard to understand.

[DrSeussRevived]

Because you said this:

"this woman has done no favours at all to women who have genuine grievances."

Not "to people who have", to women.

So it was you who introduced sex.

[var123]

Seriously? And from that you read into it a the "gives women a bad name" theme?? One of us can't do reading comprehension and its not me.

[DrSeussRevived]

Yup, var isn't the only person who thinks like that. Feel free to take my points as general statements about how one woman doing something reflects badly on women in general in a way that just doesn't apply to men.

[var123]

eh?

[var123]

I was just thinking that its not a good idea to cry wolf...

[DrSeussRevived]

No, var.

If I go to the police and make something up repeatedly, then when I have a genuine grievance, I can expect to be taken less seriously because I cried wolf.

The "groups" that I am in (class, sex, race, age etc) should not be taken less seriously.

[RhodaBull]

I walked through Waterloo Station yesterday. I thought about this incident and I looked around at the men lumping man bags and thought how easily it is to get barged. And barged hard. I was walking at speed across the concourse and frankly I can't imagine how someone walking the other way/alongside/the same way could possibly have committed the sexual assault, though. Squashed on the tube, maybe, but whilst walking along? Even at a slow speed, it would take a huge amount of contortion.

[scarlets]

I've never heard of her. She is delusional, whoever she is.

Can't believe it went that far, someone in a position of authority must've been a fan.

[poorbuthappy]

So if this proves all women are men hating delusional false rape claimants does the Millie Dowler story earlier this week prove all men are rapists, murdering scum of the earth?

[AdrenalineFudge]

I didn't realise there was a thread already going so I'm late to the discussion but I agree very much that this story is utterly bizarre and I'm half thinking that the powers that be perhaps sought to make a hatchet job of this case just to prove some other equally bizarre point because it's quite clear that nothing what-so-ever took place at that time, with that man, at that location.

I've also read a couple of articles naming and shaming the actress involved and like many of you my first reaction was 'who?'. And yes the feminists haters are really out in force over this.

lurking your point wrt what the justice system should be or expected to be is quite thought-provoking. If it's truly the case that land law makes up the vast majority of our laws then that's quite an eye-opening post and in truth something that's never really occurred to me.

[prh47bridge]

If it's truly the case that land law makes up the vast majority of our laws

Lurking said property law makes up the bulk of our laws, not land law. Property law covers land law, trusts law, personal property law and intellectual property law. Whether it constitutes the bulk of our laws depends on your point of view. Laws about housing, tenant rights, agriculture, forestry, resource extraction, nature conservation, environmental protection, investment and taxation can all be regarded as property law. However, the average man in the street may think that the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, isn't really a property law.

[LurkingHusband]

lurking your point wrt what the justice system should be or expected to be is quite thought-provoking. If it's truly the case that land law makes up the vast majority of our laws then that's quite an eye-opening post and in truth something that's never really occurred to me.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/high-house-prices-inequality-normans

in 2016, the distribution of land in the UK can be directly traced back 1000 years.

All those laws have worked. The descendants of the Norman elite still own 70% of the land they were given when England was invaded.

www.omgfacts.com/lists/13360/70-of-land-in-England-is-still-owned-by-the-descendants-of-William-the-Conqueror-s-army

UK law: tried and tested for 1,000 years. So successful, we exported it to the US ...