observer Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 However, mud sticks; so is it time that the accused was given the same anonymity as the accuser until proven guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 No.... because it has proven that it actively encourages people to come forward with allegations that they might never have done such as in the Stuart Hall case.....but if they claim false allegations; when the accused is found not guilty; the accuser should be named and shamed and have their lives subject to the same ruination as those they accused 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Very rare for me to agree with Baz on legal issues, but on this One I do.!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Is it too late to change my mind on this??? Very rare for me to agree with Baz on legal issues, but on this One I do.!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 His name has been dragged though the mud, and it looks like she has got off scot free. THAT IS WRONG!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Sorry Baz, can't follow your logic: two wrongs don't make a right. This is a license for anyone with a desire to pull celebs down or aspirations for compen to make malicious allegations. Publicity for the accused ensures mud sticks, something that can't be repaired. In this case, there was no forensic or eye witness evidence, which meant one person's word against another's; and given the criminal court requirement to find beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm amazed the CPS brought the case to court at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 . In this case, there was no forensic or eye witness evidence, which meant one person's word against another's; and given the criminal court requirement to find beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm amazed the CPS brought the case to court at all. EXACTLY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 So Kev is not guilty. I knew he would come out smelling of Rosie.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Perhaps a new title for the boss of the CPS? - Witch Finder General - could get a pay rise out of it ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 No doubt that he will celebrate with a few tots ............ of whiskey in the Rovers Return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.