Anonymity for the Accused? (1 Viewer)

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member

This helps nobody. Obviously it's a harrowing tale for those falsely accused. But it also doesn't help those with genuine rape claims to come forward. So are we at a point where we need to keep the accused identities' anonymous until after a trial? But what do you do here, when she's accused them herself?!? The vigilanteism is chilling, and the ordeal is horrible.

And it also gives amunition to genuine rapists to intimidate victims, throw a bit of mud and all that.

Horrible. I hope the men get as much support as they possibly can. And her too, as she appears to be genuinely mentally ill.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
The answer to this bit should be yes for all crimes, in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I tend to agree. What the hell do you do when the accuser splashes your name all over facebook, however?

I mean... if you *are* guilty, you can't try the victim really without it being in incredibly bad taste but, if they're innocent, you get.. this.
 

SBT

Well-Known Member
It’s been tried a few times in the past 50 years but the law keeps going back and forth on it and there isn’t much evidence of it having much effect one way or the other. Rape charities say it would serve to reinforce the idea that rape cases are somehow more likely to involve false claims, which isn’t true - I have a lot of sympathy with that view.

Generally speaking I think there is value in justice taking place out in the open, but with the explosion of social media and citizen journalists etc then it might need to be revisited.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Rape charities say it would serve to reinforce the idea that rape cases are somehow more likely to involve false claims, which isn’t true - I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
Yeah, that's my difficulty - it's the obvious defence by dodgy men isn't it, that they were making it all up, and cases like this just fan the flames. I honestly don't know how to stop someone like this woman though, and the consequence of her actions is wider than just her and these particular men, isn't it.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Does anyone understand what the defence solicitor is saying at the end of the piece or is it just badly written

Either: She still says they're guilty or;

She still says she's guilty because of the PTSD she suffers because of a childhood trauma.

(I guess!)

Edit: not the latter apparently, as the defence didn't use it in defence.
 

TomRad85

Well-Known Member
I tend to agree. What the hell do you do when the accuser splashes your name all over facebook, however?

I mean... if you *are* guilty, you can't try the victim really without it being in incredibly bad taste but, if they're innocent, you get.. this.
Unsure, but lets start with the bit we agree on and let someone more clued up take it from there.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Either: She still says they're guilty or;

She still says she's guilty because of the PTSD she suffers because of a childhood trauma.

(I guess!)

Edit: not the latter apparently, as the defence didn't use it in defence.
Yeah, it's that despite all evidence showing she lied and made everything up she still carries on the act that it all really happened.

Is it a ruse to show she is mentally ill (or more so) or is she really that ill? I hope she gets hope and finds the peace she needs in life.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
It seems she might have beaten herself up!
Yep, definitely looks like this. At least the once in the case of the guy they proved was nowhere near the area when she claimed it happened.

Is Anonymity for defendants and proper punishment for those who break this online?
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
and proper punishment for those who break this online?
Where I struggle here is with somebody who has genuinely been advised, screams it out in the platforms available... to then prosecute them for breaking silence seems tough!

Obviously it doesn't in this particular case, but the same applies of innocent until proven guilty, and is unhelpful to say the least if a lynch mob decides the local reporter is part of a cover up for Muslim grooming gangs!
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Where I struggle here is with somebody who has genuinely been advised, screams it out in the platforms available... to then prosecute them for breaking silence seems tough!

Obviously it doesn't in this particular case, but the same applies of innocent until proven guilty, and is unhelpful to say the least if a lynch mob decides the local reporter is part of a cover up for Muslim grooming gangs!
Why? Contempt of court is a crime now and you can see yourself in real trouble for talking about a case if it is deemed to have endangered the trial.

The law's are already there
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Why? Contempt of court is a crime now and you can see yourself in real trouble for talking about a case if it is deemed to have endangered the trial.

The law's are already there
I guess I just see the reverse, Rochdale, and think it'd be salt in the wound if you then got a conviction for naming your abusers after being ignored.

But that then opens it up for this woman to cause so much shit!
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
I guess I just see the reverse, Rochdale, and think it'd be salt in the wound if you then got a conviction for naming your abusers after being ignored.

But that then opens it up for this woman to cause so much shit!
But naming the defendants doesn't help you get a conviction, in fact it is fuel for a mistrial appeal.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
You read the article about the local reporter? Simon Gilbert never had it so good than working around here!

Must have been wild around there as at the same time this was happening, she was also being banned for drug driving!


Things I take away from this however - I never realised there was a legal limit for cocaine in your system while driving a car(!)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top