Ruin someones life, no catches.

kindai

kindai

kindai

Sgarrista
System Admin
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Posts
11,093
Location
Bromsgrove
2:30 in.

Just shows how broken and wrong "justice" is. Someones life and name can be ruined forever, yet there is no justice for that person when it turns out the allegations are false, the accuser gets legal anonymity and no repercussions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-421...e-i-was-wrongly-accused-of-being-a-paedophile

How can it be so incredibly one sided. I have always believed legal anonymity should extend both ways until the issue is resolved and then the person who is found to be in the wrong named.
 
oh god this is too much of a topic for me to address at this time in the morning.

tl:dr the media has no place publishing from the courtroom unless:
a. the person is an at large suspect who presents a danger to the public and the court decides public awareness is required
b. the person has been convicted of a crime
 
adolf hamster said:
oh god this is too much of a topic for me to address at this time in the morning.

tl:dr the media has no place publishing from the courtroom unless:
a. the person is an at large suspect who presents a danger to the public and the court decides public awareness is required
b. the person has been convicted of a crime
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The older I get, the more I realise that people are generally as thick as ****. It's why I don't engage in any social media and I don't read newspapers. The Christopher Jefferies case is probably the earliest I can remember actually paying attention to what had actually went on, and I pretty much decided from then on that I couldn't take the media seriously. The tabloid media in particular gets away with absolute murder.

It's nothing short of torches and pitchforks most of the time.
 
without doubting his innocence there is a difference between a prosecution/case failing and there being evidence that someone lied... obviously in a she said/he said (or equivalent in the case of a kid) one side is either not telling the truth or has a rather distorted perspective of events etc..

however if someone is to say withdraw evidence, or fails to get people to believe their account that alone isn't really sufficient to say they definitely lied/were malicious and need to be charged - I mean you could have a chilling effect on rapes if lots of failed rape prosecutions resulted in the people claiming to have been raped getting charged - lots of them probably fail because there is insufficient evidence but that isn't the same thing

sure if there is evidence that a deliberately false accusation has been made.. someone comes up with a story that is demonstrably false and ruins someone's life like that then they should be charged

I've got mixed views re: naming suspects - on one had clearly lots of these cases do fail and naming someone can often ruin their lives even when they inevitably often end up with no conviction - on the other hand when one person is named publicly often others then have the courage to come forwards too and a case can be made against a prolific abuser

also we do know that the authorities can act in rather a dubious manner when things don't fit the current narrative - the muslim grooming gangs etc.. if there were legal bans on reporting the prosecution of people until conviction then the lack of transparency there where the authorities have already failed to react out of political correctness wouldn't be good.. there were still people who got off Scott free there and people with rather light sentences for their part in the sexual abuse of kids (in fact the numpty who put some bacon beside a mosque probably got a longer sentence than some of the actual abusers)
 
dowie said:
[..]
I've got mixed views re: naming suspects - on one had clearly lots of these cases do fail and naming someone can often ruin their lives even when they inevitably often end up with no conviction - on the other hand when one person is named publicly often others then have the courage to come forwards too and a case can be made against a prolific abuser
Click to expand...

And on the other hand (genetic engineering to the rescue - a third hand would quite often be useful) public naming with the usual presumed guilt encourages both false accusations and false memories. The most obvious examples are the literal witch hunts, but it's inevitable whenever the conditions are right. Lynchings, the "satanic abuse" hysteria, etc, etc. Human nature, unfortunately, and modern communication systems greatly facilitate it.

There are probably some more "hands" as well.
 
Awfully sad but doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m just glad he had his family around him so he didn’t hang himself as he alluded to in the video. The law needs to change on these scenarios.
 
Seems to be an absolute minefield to get justice on cases like this right, people are quick to come to their own conclusions, like at work if you mess up badly once you'll have those who'll never be favorable of you again regardless of how much you improve or whether the bulk of the problem was actually that individuals sole responsibility.
 
Would people be against false accusations carrying potential sentences in length and severity to those which would be sentenced for guilty convictions of the accusations?

And I know people will come in and immediately say a lot of rape cases in particular don't go anywhere due to lack of evidence rather than false accusation and it could deter people from coming forward, but there are clear cases like this where it's just straight up rubbish, why can't we prosecute people for this? Wasn't there some news story a while ago where a woman got convicted but only after 4/5 (I don't remember the specific number) false accusations? One is enough, 4 or 5? Unbelievable.
 
Mason- said:
Would people be against false accusations carrying potential sentences in length and severity to those which would be sentenced for guilty convictions of the accusations?

And I know people will come in and immediately say a lot of rape cases in particular don't go anywhere due to lack of evidence rather than false accusation and it could deter people from coming forward, but there are clear cases like this where it's just straight up rubbish, why can't we prosecute people for this? Wasn't there some news story a while ago where a woman got convicted but only after 4/5 (I don't remember the specific number) false accusations? One is enough, 4 or 5? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

i was under the impression there were already laws for falsified evidence/accusations
 
adolf hamster said:
i was under the impression there were already laws for falsified evidence/accusations
Click to expand...

This is pure speculation I haven't read anything to back it up, but I think most claims like this are he said/she said and most that don't end in conviction are due to lack of evidence which is in no way an indictment of the accuser or the accused, but in cases like this where it's clearly obvious the accused isn't guilty I think there should be much harsher penalties. A quick bit of research in this case alone is insane, the accused said that he was raped in a car between 2003/2004, and the accused didn't purchase the car until 2005... unbelievable. There's this on top of the lack of anonymity to the accused which just makes it awful.
 
The problem is the media write "someone said x" etc, so it's usually not actually them saying it.

So they can publish whatever they like, ruin people's lives, write totally fake news.... at the same time the government praises the freedom of the press.

The freedom of the press IS A BAD THING.

They even say a free press is an essential part of a democracy. NO IT ISN'T.
 
billysielu said:
The problem is the media write "someone said x" etc, so it's usually not actually them saying it.

So they can publish whatever they like, ruin people's lives, write totally fake news.... at the same time the government praises the freedom of the press.

The freedom of the press IS A BAD THING.

They even say a free press is an essential part of a democracy. NO IT ISN'T.
Click to expand...

I agree but the alternative, a moderated press is a scary thing open to abuse as well. Both are flawed.
 
Mason- said:
I agree but the alternative, a moderated press is a scary thing open to abuse as well. Both are flawed.
Click to expand...

indeed, there's a balance between the freedom of the press to criticise the current political regime (which it absolutely should be allowed to do) and the freedom of the press to do whatever the hell it likes.

the simplest method i can think to acheive this is what i mentioned in my first post.
 
billysielu said:
Why?
At the moment they're slandering people we elected - hindering their ability to do the jobs they were elected for.
Click to expand...

It's required because democracy can only function if the electorate are informed. If you can control the information the electorate have access to, you can control the voting and you can conceal abuses of your power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom