Did you see, that Bromley nursery manager you were all having hysterics over, wa actually INNOCENT?

[SolidGoldBrass]

Next time, how about everyone using their wits before working themselves up into a pants-shitting frenzy about a story that sounds thoroughly dubious in the first place.

There is no such thing as 'found innocent,' it's 'acquitted'

yes

you are no "Innocent"

guilty or not guilty

w

What activate said. The poor woman is only in the position of having to be found not guilty because she was put in court by malicious lies.

This smole without fire stuff is awful.

onagar that is i'm afraid human nature, especially if those making the accusations aren't brought to account, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.
But either way be it 2 teenagers having the balls of steel required to stand up in crown court and tell bare faced lies or a nursery manager who has abused babies, something within that nursery is very wrong.

Rubbish..you can be "found innocent"

Have you ever been in court, daftpunk?

The verdict that you're asked to give as a jury foreman is 'guilty' or 'not guilty'

Which means that the prosecution hasn't been able to prove your guilt.

Not your innocence.

It IS human nature, but let's not encourage it by saying it out loud in a very public place.

The thing is, she has no plans to go on with her career in childcare, so the whole question of whether you would let her look after your children is completely irrelevant.

The poor woman has had her career ruined despite being innocent, so you know what, she's been found innocent AND punished. That should please everyone.

She could actually start by suing some people on this thread. That would be fun wouldn't it.

Well, because there is a fairly longstanding climate of absolute fuckwitted hysteria about child protection, any nasty little sod with an axe to grind knows that you can accuse a person of harming children and completely trash that person's life. Because (not unreasonably) if a serious accusation is made then it has to be investigated, and the minute the fact of an investigation becomes public, then all the bucketheads and whiners and hard-of-thinking would-be vigilantes will immediately convict the accused in the media and never accept that it could be a load of malicious bullshit.

oanagar and activate... when exactly did I say that she wasn't innocent?

I have not made an opinion in either direction. Just that I find it hard to believe that a couple of teenagers being vindictive would get this far (I also said I am happy to be corrected) and that being found not guilty does not = innocent, and therefore does not = that she did not do anything alleged. Just that it could not be proved.

activate, I do to a large degree agree with your trial by media, trial by idiot statement as we all know how the media skew things, but like I have said, just because she was found not guilty, does that really equal innocent of the allegations?

She may very well be the victim of a little hate campaign, but I reserve judgement on that without being in receipt of the full facts.

Also, thank you to the pedants that dropped by!

Regardless of the verdict, I am disgusted that this woman was brought to national attention including a ruddy great big picture all over the press and the internet, when the outcome of the trial was yet to be decided.

There will always be some now that will look at her and mutter 'No smoke without fire'.

The media is shaping society and then reporting on it, that's gotta be wrong.

I am surprised it got to court if this was all made up, but a case as potentially sensitive as this probably WAS pushed into court as no-one would like to take the responsibility of potentially dismissing a case where so many tiny children could have been abused.

Time will probably tell, now that she is 'on the radar' as it were...

FFS "she was found not guilty" as though that means that there's doubt over her guilt.
She was found not guilty because unless you can prove she did something then she's innocent. There's no verdict of innocent. She is innocent unless you can prove otherwise.

Would just like to clarify that I wasn't trying to insinuate anything about the woman in question or that she is in some way guilty - just pointing out that in court it's about being found 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. And as mayorquimby so rightly points out, that is because the core principle of English law is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore if she is found not guilty, by definition she is innocent as her guilt hasn't been proven.

Well anyone saying there's no smoke without fire comment etc might well find they could be sued for libel and I hope they would be. Thankfully despite mass hysteria over offences against children which are fewer these days than they ever were (we had child brothels in Victorian London etc) not that you'd realise from the silly media coverage, people are not guilty until proven so.

Because is right of course and there are also plenty of cases where people are genuinely innocent but the CPS wastes tax payer money on bringing a case. Most people who lie in court are not prosecuted for it although if the women who allegedly did lie in court have any money / a house etc it might be worth suing them but I doubt they do and I doubt even if they did it would be worth the hassle. Most people who sue for libel regret it and just because somenoe chooses not to does not mean they accept the statement was true.

yes but we are living in a visual age, an instant age, instant fame, instant infamy.

These days, actual fact means very little. In our brand crazed, image obsessed society, the cold hard truth rarely has a place at the table.

No law in the land can sue you for your inner held thoughts, people will read those rags and make up their own minds.

That woman's life will never be her own again, because a journalist ran a story detailing sordid details of allegations against her.

If she had have done what was said that she had done, she is a monster. Even though she has been judged not guilty, she will be forever tainted by this trial.

I am sorry. I know what the law says, but it is total bollocks if you really believe that not guilty verdict = innocent all the time!!!

Absolute bull. I don't care what you say.

I know people that have been arrested, charged and attended court for a crime. They got acquitted as the crime could not be proven 100%. But in reality... they were as guilty as hell! They bloody well did it. It just couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where are the parents of the children that were allegedly abused? Was it only the nursery workers that said anything/gave evidence?

Once again, me personally, I said I am not sure about the woman as not guilty does not equal innocent IMO. I have not said she did what was alleged, I have not said she didn't. e all know the media report what they want to.

It's routine for journalists to run a story detailing yhe charges against a defendant and the court date. Also a picture. It is part of ghr basic tenets of our legal system 'that justice must be seen to be done.'

There are strict laws around the reporting of court cases so as not to prejudice a trial . Most media are a fair bit more responsible in reporting court cases than the people discussing it on the Internet. Most media are also reluctant to libel someone by claiming there is 'no smoke without fire.'

I think mumsnetters say outrageous things about people, like this woman, and then justify it by adding 'oh but the media is worse.'

The media isn't perfect, but actually I think someti
es mumsnet is worse.

Are you her Lawyer or something..?

I know someone who was found not guilty of a sexual assault, they most certainly were guilty of committing.

Courts do not always get it right

Those girls should be tried and convicted of perjury ad made an example of.

Why do you ask that DP?

You seem a bit too concerned about what people are saying about her...