where is the first place to go for help if youre an alcoholic?

[biglips]

????? (im not talking about me as im talking about someone else)

GP.

i wouldn't go to my GP, b/c then it's on your records and could jeopardise your getting life insurance, critical care insurance, etc.

i'd go to AA. 'anonymous' being the key here.

Yes I agree with expat

Dh and i were having this convo last night watching the program about rape. He is a medical lawyer(used to do some medical criminal work years ago) and he said that if he was defending for eg an allegation of groping by a doctor, if there was anything at all on the alleged victim's medical records, eg alcoholism, depression (even one episode) - even just frequent attendance at the drs, then he could be sure of getting his client off. Sad but true.

I would go somewhere where it doesn't make it onto your medical records in the first instance

your local AA or mental health clinic.

Wow, Countess! That's really an eye-opener for me, coming from the US, where laws regarding rape prosecution are more progressive in many states - e.g., not allowing a woman's past sexual history, history of substance abuse or mental illness, to be admissable in court.

Sentences for rape and sexual assualt are still too light, IMO, but they tend to be tougher than here on the whole and rape is much more likely to come to trial to be prosecuted.

Yes we were saying it is really not fair, especially as the defendent's previous is not allowed to be brought up.

He said that he thinks the one thing that will change as a result of legally qualified people now being allowed to do jury service is that juries will now realise that if a defendent's lawyer doesn't point out what a good character he has in respect of this offence (eg he has no previous for any kind of sexual assualt in the case of rape) then he has got it! Juries are not made aware of this.

that's awful cd - I often think about how many times you can end up at the docs especially if you have a useless GP and have to go back countless times to get them to sort something simple out

especially as the defendent's previous is not allowed to be brought up.

What sort of cross-examination is allowed then?

My god, that sounds like a throwback to the dinosaur age!

And here I thought it mind-blowing that some US states only starting disallowing evidence or cross-examination of a plaintiff's past sexual/substance/mental history in the 1990s!

That's so shocking.

I know it's very unfair isn't it?

I do think at the very least juries should know that if previous good character is not pleaded then they have prev.

They should know of any previous convictions or if previous investigations of complaint of professional misconduct have been upheld against him.

They don't though

There were moves afoot to admit similar fact evidence a few years ago

like this