[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Maybe it means they're innocent in the eyes of the law, that doesn't mean they're actually innocent though.

I know in Cliff Richards case it was dropped because of lack of evidence, not because he had evidence to prove he hadn't done anything. So therefore its a "one word against another" that doesn't mean he's innocent

Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...er-prosecutor/

So, even though there is insufficient - or even no evidence - and no way to prove he is innocent, you think he should be guilty? No man has any chance of clearing his name once he's accused then? So he's damned for all time on the say-so of someone who may remain anonymous.

Luckily the onus is for the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and if they can't, then he's innocent. And until some of these men who have gone through the court case and come out the other side, start suing people who publish stuff insinuating that 'insufficient evidence' means 'guilty', then people are going to continue to assume that if he has a cock, he's probably a rapist.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Livia

So, even though there is insufficient - or even no evidence - and no way to prove he is innocent, you think he should be guilty? No man has any chance of clearing his name once he's accused then? So he's damned for all time on the say-so of someone who may remain anonymous.

Luckily the onus is for the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and if they can't, then he's innocent. And until some of these men who have gone through the court case and come out the other side, start suing people who publish stuff insinuating that 'insufficient evidence' means 'guilty', then people are going to continue to assume that if he has a cock, he's probably a rapist.

No I don't think he should be guilty, I'm saying just because he's not found guilty doesn't necessarily make him innocent. Why should I automatically believe him over someone who said they were abused by him?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No I don't think he should be guilty, I'm saying just because he's not found guilty doesn't necessarily make him innocent. Why should I automatically believe him over someone who said they were abused by him?

Because there’s no evidence?

Anyone can say anything.

The problem with TV stations and Parliament etc is that any Tom,Dick or Harry can phone in and say some **** and they’ll suspend the person accused straight away pending an investigation.

And then even if it gets to court and there’s no substantial evidence you still get the “no smoke without fire” crew condemning them for life.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Because there’s no evidence?

Anyone can say anything.

The problem with TV stations and Parliament etc is that any Tom,Dick or Harry can phone in and say some **** and they’ll suspend the person accused straight away pending an investigation.

And then even if it gets to court and there’s no substantial evidence you still get the “no smoke without fire” crew condemning them for life.

Evidence of something like that after a certain amount of time has passed would be very hard to come up with

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Evidence of something like that after a certain amount of time has passed would be very hard to come up with

True but if they can’t be prosecuted then it’s just a guessing game.Condemning someone for life with no proof they’ve even ever done anything wrong ruins peoples careers and lives.Just like that Welsh Labour MP who killed himself.Mud sticks.
There’s not even anonymity until they’re found guilty.Only for the person making the claim.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No I don't think he should be guilty, I'm saying just because he's not found guilty doesn't necessarily make him innocent. Why should I automatically believe him over someone who said they were abused by him?

One is innocent until proven guilty though. Scotland has a not proven verdict, but it still has to go through due process to get to that point.

I have no problem with someone who is under investigation being suspended until the investigation is complete. But it is just that, an investigation. No guilt can be implied from it.