[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Sticks

What about the poor victims

Abusers seldom abuse just one victim, as the trial of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall proved.

[Z]

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

[anne666]

Originally Posted by Z

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

I disagree. In the case of Rolf Harris this was suppressed for 5 weeks
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/a...uppress-arrest


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28102238

Lawyers for Harris wrote to media organisations including the BBC at the time warning them against naming their client and threatening libel action.

When he was arrested again in March 2013 the Met did not name Harris and he was not identified in the mainstream media until a few weeks later.

The other women who gave evidence in court contacted police after Harris's arrest was made public and he was charged in August of that year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sers-free.html

Anti-secrecy campaigners have repeatedly warned that many historical abuse cases may never come to court or be successfully prosecuted unless names are issued on arrest. Failing to name suspects also stops other victims from coming forward.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Z

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

i agree, the majority are liars and false accusers and the false accussers should be named shamed arrested and imprisoned.....falsely accusing someone of rape or molestation is almost as evil as the crime of rape itself

[Z]

Originally Posted by anne666

I disagree. In the case of Rolf Harris this was suppressed for 5 weeks
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/a...uppress-arrest


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28102238





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sers-free.html

Fair enough but I think my point still stands that it's unfair to name people before they've been convicted, the accusation alone can ruin someone's life because people read the headline and forever associate that person with the crime even if they didn't commit it.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Z

You could interpret it either way - somebody jumping on the bandwagon to accuse an elderly entertainer of sexual abuse to earn a quick buck; or somebody plucking up the courage to finally come forward after seeing other entertainers be convicted of historical crimes. For every Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile so far there's been a Louis Walsh or a Michael LeVell - it's a bit unfair that the media openly name people when they haven't been proven guilty because it can really tarnish their careers.

100% agree with this,Cliff is done now ,whether he's guilty or not.

[Z]

It's a shame if he's innocent because Cliff Richard has always made a point of keeping his private life private; and now people are assuming that's because he has something to hide. Of course, people have always speculated that he's hiding something (his sexuality) but now it's taken a very dark turn with people assuming he's a criminal because of this... which isn't fair, if he's innocent.

[lostalex]

people seem to be obsessed with this idea that it's so unfair for decent men to be named, what about all of the innocent victims of abuse who suffer in silence? no one seems to be worried about them. For every 1 innocent man falsely accused there are 100 victims who never get justice.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Z

It's a shame if he's innocent because Cliff Richard has always made a point of keeping his private life private; and now people are assuming that's because he has something to hide. Of course, people have always speculated that he's hiding something (his sexuality) but now it's taken a very dark turn with people assuming he's a criminal because of this... which isn't fair, if he's innocent.

I totally agree, I just don't know when all these 'cases' are going to end.
There issomething that just doesn't always register with me these cases,even the ones where a guilty verdict has been given.

I know we don't get to hear all the evidence but I still cannot get in the Rolf Harris case for instance, it was said one of his victims was 7 or 8 years old when the incident took place.
Waht, surely they know exactly where and when and certainly should know if she was actually 7 or 8 years old.

This with Cliff Riichard,if it turns out to be a false allegation and nothing is done as to charges, I hope there is a review as to how these complaints are actually treated again.
I also think the time has come,correctly for anyone who has committed these abuses to face up to them but equally so, if someone has made a false allegation then they should face the music too.

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

people seem to be obsessed with this idea that it's so unfair for decent men to be named, what about all of the innocent victims of abuse who suffer in silence? no one seems to be worried about them. For every 1 innocent man falsely accused there are 100 victims who never get justice.

It's not a competition or a case of one versus the other. It is unfair to tarnish the life of an innocent person. Therefore, the media shouldn't be naming anyone until they have been convicted of a crime. As for the victims who never get justice - they can come forward with their allegations and let the courts deal with them. There is simply no need for the sensationalist aspect to the accusation. If my uncle raped me when I was 10, there wouldn't be a media headline about it and I wouldn't want there to be one, I'd want it to be dealt with properly and get my justice. This culture of trying to shock the country by naming and shaming celebrities as being morally bankrupt criminals (Cliff Richard, Jimmy Savile, Tulisa...) is just not okay in my opinion, regardless of whether they were guilty or not. Let it be known if they are proven guilty; otherwise they should be granted the same anonymity as any other accused person.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I totally agree, I just don't know when all these 'cases' are going to end.
There issomething that just doesn't always register with me these cases,even the ones where a guilty verdict has been given.

I know we don't get to hear all the evidence but I still cannot get in the Rolf Harris case for instance, it was said one of his victims was 7 or 8 years old when the incident took place.
Waht, surely they know exactly where and when and certainly should know if she was actually 7 or 8 years old.

This with Cliff Riichard,if it turns out to be a false allegation and nothing is done as to charges, I hope there is a review as to how these complaints are actually treated again.
I also think the time has come,correctly for anyone who has committed these abuses to face up to them but equally so, if someone has made a false allegation then they should face the music too.

how much do you remember when you were 7 or 8 years old 20 or 30 years later? Victims of crimes have trouble remembering details even just 7 or 8 hours later, but we are going to hold an abused child to a higher standard like they should have a perfect memory 20 years later?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Z

It's not a competition or a case of one versus the other. It is unfair to tarnish the life of an innocent person. Therefore, the media shouldn't be naming anyone until they have been convicted of a crime. As for the victims who never get justice - they can come forward with their allegations and let the courts deal with them. There is simply no need for the sensationalist aspect to the accusation. If my uncle raped me when I was 10, there wouldn't be a media headline about it and I wouldn't want there to be one, I'd want it to be dealt with properly and get my justice. This culture of trying to shock the country by naming and shaming celebrities as being morally bankrupt criminals (Cliff Richard, Jimmy Savile, Tulisa...) is just not okay in my opinion, regardless of whether they were guilty or not. Let it be known if they are proven guilty; otherwise they should be granted the same anonymity as any other accused person.

I agree that it shouldn't be sensationalized, but at the same time, there's no need to demonize the victims and cal them opportunists just desperate for cash, or blame the victims for the media's bad behavior.

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I agree that it shouldn't be sensationalized, but at the same time, there's no need to demonize the victims and cal them opportunists just desperate for cash, or blame the victims for the media's bad behavior.

I didn't intend to demonise anyone, I was just making a point that for every case where a celebrity has been convicted of historical abuse, there's a case where such accusations have turned out to be false but the damage has already been done because the media have named these people. There are people out there who will sell stories and tell lies just to make a quick buck and that's because of our red top tabloid culture which encourages that behaviour. It's demeaning to actual victims of sexual abuse that there are people out there willing to lie and risk going to jail by getting a five figure sum from a classless newspaper to claim they were sexually assaulted, abuse or raped by someone famous. It's appalling.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by lostalex

how much do you remember when you were 7 or 8 years old 20 or 30 years later? Victims of crimes have trouble remembering details even just 7 or 8 hours later, but we are going to hold an abused child to a higher standard like they should have a perfect memory 20 years later?

Well I am only 22 I guess but I can just about remember every important detail as to my life from being 5 really.
An incident like that,I would certainly remember for sure and my point was there must have to be evidence of time, place and where and when this happened and surely the exact age must be known from that.
Otherwise all you have is likely circumstantial evidence or in fact even little that anything took place at all.

Things have to be exact and substantiated in a courtroom and aged 7 or 8 doesn't sound that convincing to me.
There could be up to a whole year involved in that frame.

I didn't see or hear all the evidence,I admit to that but they must know where it was and then both age and event have a place, time,event and age fully known.
Yet even now after the case, it is said he had an incident with a girl when she was 7 or 8, I don't get that.
Were I the defending counsel in such a case,I would have made a massive meal of that point alone.

[lostalex]

holding victims to such a high standard is what abusers count on, they know they get the benefit of the doubt and they use that to abuse children. They know they can get away with it and they usually do.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by lostalex

holding victims to such a high standard is what abusers count on, they know they get the benefit of the doubt and they use that to abuse children.

I agree 100% with you as to that Lostalex,and I always hope real justice is done for anyone who has been abused but it does also have to proven beyond all doubt.

I accept we do not hear all the evidence,I am just puzzled in this one that they don't even know the exact age of the person abused.
I find that odd from where and what I have been able to read about this case.
I'd have thought just about near all the charge would have to revolve around that as to the whole incident.

Guess we may never know unless on appeal more is revealed as to this one.

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

holding victims to such a high standard is what abusers count on, they know they get the benefit of the doubt and they use that to abuse children. They know they can get away with it and they usually do.

And that's terrible, but it doesn't justify going the other way and exposing every single person accused of a sex crime before they've even gone to court. Cliff Richard's one of the most successful British artists of all time with a career spanning decades and now, with one single headline and as yet to be justified accusation, his impeccable reputation has been tarnished, perhaps forever. If he's guilty, then great, justice has been done. If he's innocent, what can he do? He can't come back from an accusation like that.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Z

And that's terrible, but it doesn't justify going the other way and exposing every single person accused of a sex crime before they've even gone to court. Cliff Richard's one of the most successful British artists of all time with a career spanning decades and now, with one single headline and as yet to be justified accusation, his impeccable reputation has been tarnished, perhaps forever. If he's guilty, then great, justice has been done. If he's innocent, what can he do? He can't come back from an accusation like that.

there are plenty of other successful british artists who don't have these allegations though, so if it's just about opportunists trying to get money wouldn't all british super stars have these kind of allegations against them?

If it's so common for people to just make allegations to make money, why don't all successful men have these allegations?

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=Z;7184220]And that's terrible, but it doesn't justify going the other way and exposing every single person accused of a sex crime before they've even gone to court. Cliff Richard's one of the most successful British artists of all time with a career spanning decades and now, with one single headline and as yet to be justified accusation, his impeccable reputation has been tarnished, perhaps forever. If he's guilty, then great, justice has been done. If he's innocent, what can he do? He can't come back from an accusation like that.[/QUOTE]

Even if no charges are brought, it is now out there and for many the 'no smoke wthout fire' words get taken on board.
I just feel in investigating these historic abuse cases, it has gone too far one way and needs to be curbed back a little and only when strong evidence is found then begin the naming process.

[lostalex]

And the accuser is also tainted for life. No one escapes from this situation unscathed. She is also tainted by it, and haunted by it forever. You make it sound like it's easy on her. She also was destroying her life and taking a huge risk by coming forward. Even if she can't prove it, she took a huge risk to come forward.

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

there are plenty of other successful british artists who don't have these allegations though, so if it's just about opportunists trying to get money wouldn't all british super stars have these kind of allegations against them?

If it's so common for people to just make allegations to make money, why don't all successful men have these allegations?

They do, though, that's precisely my point. All these people are coming out of the woodwork since Jimmy Savile died - which in itself was a point of contention; why did all those men and women wait for all that time when there were so many of them? Cover ups, not being taken seriously, being afraid... it's all become clear now, but I think as that unfolded it's become clear to opportunists that they can target just about any entertainer and take it to the papers. That's wrong. Take it to the police. Of course, many allegations get thrown out because they're implausible and being made by very stupid people and that much is clear from the outset, but if the allegation is made by someone more credible, or in a way that's more credible, then it will of course be investigated, which is only right. It's just appalling that the BBC 'got the scoop' and more or less blackmailed the police investigation for a headline! I think that's wrong.

Originally Posted by lostalex

And the accuser is also tainted for life. No one escapes from this situation unscathed. She is also tainted by it, and haunted by it forever. You make it sound like it's easy on her. She also was destroying her life and taking a huge risk by coming forward. Even if she can't prove it, she took a huge risk to come forward.

Except, crucially, the accuser hasn't been named and shamed in the media. The accuser can anonymously name the abuser and the British public aren't made aware of their identity. That is fair. Naming the abuser isn't, not while they're still innocent until proven guilty. Of course it's not easy on the victim - but the same logic should be applied to the accused; we don't know if they're guilty or not, that is the point of a trial. It's brave to come forward and log your complaint with the police; if it's on file then even if it's not proven, the evidence will still be kept for a number of years on that person's file and if anyone else ever came forward it would surely count against them. It's just not right to involve the media. It damns the accused even when they're innocent.

[lostalex]

so let me ask you a question. do you think Hugh Grant picked up a prostitute? or you think it was all just a misunderstanding?

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

so let me ask you a question. do you think Hugh Grant picked up a prostitute? or you think it was all just a misunderstanding?

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Wtf

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Z

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Wtf

i'm just trying to gauge how naive you are.

[Sticks]

The person accused of a sex crime MUST have his identity publicised so other victims can come forward and build a case against the abuser!!

Anonymity is a must, so the victims will not fear coming forward.

With Cliff, after the raid the police said many others came forward with information, which is telling.

Maybe Cliff has been abusing more than one little boy.

Time to extradite him from Portugal, arrest and charge him.

As for that DJ who played one of his records, I hope the radio station takes disciplinary action against him, because that can bring that station in to bad repute