Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
By prejudiced, do you mean the believed and supported the victim?
Kevin Webster not a paedo
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
By prejudiced, do you mean the believed and supported the victim?
True, Corrie aside his career is now dead.
Why is the alleged victim's identity not made public then? Perhaps she's done this before to other guys, blackmailed them into giving her money so she doesn't falsely accuse them of rape? Other alleged victims read about the allegations in the press, they come forward. Then it turns into multiple statements, lots of evidence, proof of a possible pattern and a much stronger chance of a conviction.
People like her don't need a valid reason. Compensation due to distress/attention whoring etc.
There was that woman recently who randomly picked a guy she'd never met off Facebook and claimed he raped her, fabricated a whole story. It was posted here.
This woman's story was suspect and the jury didn't buy it. The man was found innocent.
I don't think he had much hope of a career outside of Corrie, regardless of a court case, to be honest..
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
The case just didn't exist against him so how the hell did it ever get to court?
Its a sickening thought but this could happen to anyone. One girls statement and you are deemed a pedophile until proven otherwise.
Its a sickening thought but this could happen to anyone. One girls statement and you are deemed a pedophile until proven otherwise.
Actually, according to some people in this thread, you're deemed a paedophile anyway, since you semantically don't get proven innocent, you just don't get proven guilty, which means you must have done it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Some people just just don't understand there's a difference between not knowing something and assumption of guilt. It's ok to not know what happened, that doesn't mean I think someone is a sex offender.
So the gist of this thread is that if you are ever arrested for a crime then you are GUILTY, whether you are subsequently let off with a not guilty charge by the courts of law or sent to prison...? Good to know... 
Obviously the police are ALWAYS right and completely infallable, especially if it involves a sex crime (even moreso if it's against a child)...
Obviously the police are ALWAYS right and completely infallable, especially if it involves a sex crime (even moreso if it's against a child)...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
So the gist of this thread is that if you are ever arrested for a crime then you are GUILTY, whether you are subsequently let off with a not guilty charge by the courts of law or sent to prison...? Good to know...
Obviously the police are ALWAYS right and completely infallable, especially if it involves a sex crime (even moreso if it's against a child)...
I don't think we're reading the same thread.
In cases like this the alledged offender should remain anonnymous unless the police/judges have reason to believe there wasn't a single victim. If they believe there were likely to be more victims then the name can be released, if not then it should stay anonymous until they are actually found guilty in a court of law.
That appears to be what several people here are suggesting...
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
ONE FOR BURNSY......
What happens if somebody posted online a rumour they heard about the girls identity, not knowing if its true or not? And then it turns out to be true.
What happens if somebody posted online a rumour they heard about the girls identity, not knowing if its true or not? And then it turns out to be true.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Indeed.
It gets even sillier when people think that if somebody is found innocent then it means the potential victim was making deliberate fraudulent claims.
Why people try to view this in binary terms is beyond me.
There was a girl in my town that not long ago claimed a couple of "asian guys" grabbed her off the street in the early hours of the morning, pulled her into a car, drove her down to the beach and then raped her. Caused a massive uproar in town.
Turns out it was complete BS. The police found no evidence of any rape scene. There was no physical evidence she'd even had sex recently. Plus her story turned out to be full of holes and inconsistencies when questioned by police.
Personally I think women who are found to be blatantly guilty of fabricating a crime for whatever reason, should face a severe fine or jail time.
Turns out it was complete BS. The police found no evidence of any rape scene. There was no physical evidence she'd even had sex recently. Plus her story turned out to be full of holes and inconsistencies when questioned by police.
Personally I think women who are found to be blatantly guilty of fabricating a crime for whatever reason, should face a severe fine or jail time.
People are really really dumb, the quicker you realise this and hold GD to those kind of standards the quicker posting in GD becomes tolerable.