[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The law in this country is that you are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

"no smoke without fire" does not come into a court of law and is the language of the mob

When accusations are spread around in the press, it does cloud things somewhat. If say, 10 seemingly unrelated women said the same thing, randomly, about the same man that is a bit damining. However, if one does, then the press spread it around, and then others say it..it..is slightly different.

Dont get me wrong, I know how rare false accusations are. But I do acknowledge that when it comes to high profile men, lots of press, the possibility of compensation..it can encourage chancers. And then people can assume guilt simply because there are a lot of accusations also. Bad bad combo really.

I still do think a lot (again, not all) of these older guys probably did behave innapropriately towards women at some stage though. I mean, guys today do it all the time. Not all of them, but enough. And it was all way more acceptable then too..almost 'normal'. No I am not including rape in behaving dodgily..but 'sexual assault' covers a LOT of ground, patting women on the bum, and stuff included.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

When accusations are spread around in the press, it does cloud things somewhat. If say, 10 seemingly unrelated women said the same thing, randomly, about the same man that is a bit damining. However, if one does, then the press spread it around, and then others say it..it..is slightly different.

Dont get me wrong, I know how rare false accusations are. But I do acknowledge that when it comes to high profile men, lots of press, the possibility of compensation..it can encourage chancers. And then people can assume guilt simply because there are a lot of accusations also. Bad bad combo really.

This is why it's better to have the rule we have here about the accused not being allowed to be named unless they're found guilty. It also protects the accusers/victims better because alot of times they get treated as badly or worse than the accused

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

This is why it's better to have the rule we have here about the accused not being allowed to be named unless they're found guilty

Yeah, mind thats not always that sucessful when the guy is really high profile. The stories about Conor McGregor were almost amusing sometimes to read while they could not name, but it was clear who it was about!

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah, mind thats not always that sucessful when the guy is really high profile. The stories about Conor McGregor were almost amusing sometimes to read while they could not name, but it was clear who it was about!

Yeah but loads of people don't connect it to him still because it wasn't in any papers or on TV and still I wouldn't say much about it because I can't be 100% sure it was about him either

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah but loads of people don't connect it to him still because it wasn't in any papers or on TV and still I wouldn't say much about it because I can't be 100% sure it was about him either

Oh yeah, its definitely much preferable. The way we do it here does lead to (and I hate this term generally but no other way of putting it..) witchhunts sometimes.

Main one that comes to mind, Cliff Richard. Now, personal opinions aside, theres no proof he did anything at all wrong at all, But because the raid was publicied everywhere, many people now think he did as 'why would the police raid without evidence' etc. Yeah, I think the BBC paid him compensation, but the damage is done. Also a knock on effect of all that publicity, could well be that chancers see an oppurtunity to muddy the waters a bit and try for some compensation themselves by making allegations. On the other hand, some genuine victims could feel they can come forward now and end up being blamed for being chancers...either way, the publicity does noone any good. Except gossip mongers.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oh yeah, its definitely much preferable. The way we do it here does lead to (and I hate this term generally but no other way of putting it..) witchhunts sometimes.

Main one that comes to mind, Cliff Richard. Now, personal opinions aside, theres no proof he did anything at all wrong at all, But because the raid was publicied everywhere, many people now think he did as 'why would the police raid without evidence' etc. Yeah, I think the BBC paid him compensation, but the damage is done. Also a knock on effect of all that publicity, could well be that chancers see an oppurtunity to muddy the waters a bit and try for some compensation themselves by making allegations. On the other hand, some genuine victims could feel they can come forward now and end up being blamed for being chancers...either way, the publicity does noone any good. Except gossip mongers.

Yeah and the victims/alleged victims usually get a really hard time if the accused was in anyway a popular celeb too