puisseguin Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 My point was a not guilty verdict following a trial does not necessarily mean someone was not telling truth. Someone must have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Personally there is a bigger issue here in my view. A celebrity is accused and his (or her) name is made public so that other victims can come forward. Those who make the accusation remain anonymous. What if the accuser has done this before to other celebrities and who have paid them off? How can other victim's come forward if their identities are kept secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Someone must have been. Apologises that should have read 'prosecution witness not telling the truth'. ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 12:06 ---------- Personally there is a bigger issue here in my view. A celebrity is accused and his (or her) name is made public so that other victims can come forward. Those who make the accusation remain anonymous. What if the accuser has done this before to other celebrities and who have paid them off? How can other victim's come forward if their identities are kept secret? Personally I'd support anonymity for both sides in cases of this nature. Re your second point, if an 'accuser' is concocting false claims in order to obtain money from celebrities then that's a crime in it's own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Apologises that should have read 'prosecution witness not telling the truth'. ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 12:06 ---------- Personally I'd support anonymity for both sides in cases of this nature. Re your second point, if an 'accuser' is concocting false claims in order to obtain money from celebrities then that's a crime in it's own right. That's were my opinion is too. If the accused is found guilty then their name can be made public and others can come forward. If there is sufficient evidence another trial can be held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Personally there is a bigger issue here in my view. A celebrity is accused and his (or her) name is made public so that other victims can come forward. Those who make the accusation remain anonymous. What if the accuser has done this before to other celebrities and who have paid them off? How can other victim's come forward if their identities are kept secret? Shouldn't that be, A celebrity is accused and his (or her) name is made public so that other accusers can come forward to support the accusations already made, all in the hope of securing a conviction, the more accusers there are the more chance the prosecution have of getting that conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Tray Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Rolf Harris, that bloke off Coronation Street and the revolting Dave Lee Travis were all in the dock today for various rapes and sexual assaults. How blinkered, they were alleged not proven. ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 19:21 ---------- Personally I'd support anonymity for both sides in cases of this nature. I agree only the loser should be named, by that I mean if an innocent verdict is returned then the accuser should be named Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How blinkered, they were alleged not proven. How lazy; in your haste to find something of mine to disagree with you missed the part where I acknowledged missing out the word 'allegedly'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Tray Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How lazy; in your haste to find something of mine to disagree with you missed the part where I acknowledged missing out the word 'allegedly'. How convenient, maybe you're the lazy one for not checking before originally posting, ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 19:49 ---------- Personally there is a bigger issue here in my view. A celebrity is accused and his (or her) name is made public so that other victims can come forward. Those who make the accusation remain anonymous. What if the accuser has done this before to other celebrities and who have paid them off? How can other victim's come forward if their identities are kept secret? Supports the view that both or neither should be named until after the verdict which is when the loser should be named. ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 19:51 ---------- How lazy; in your haste to find something of mine to disagree with you missed the part where I acknowledged missing out the word 'allegedly'. How lazy of you not to check before your original comment before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
percy filth Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I'm not sure if saying you got it wrong actually cuts it in a libel case. Looking through this thread you have to hope Bill Roache or his friends doesn't read Sheffield Forum or a few members on here have very good lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I'm not sure if saying you got it wrong actually cuts it in a libel case. Looking through this thread you have to hope Bill Roache or his friends doesn't read Sheffield Forum or a few members on here have very good lawyers. ..it wouldn't take a good lawyer to determine that no one on this thread is suggesting the jury got it wrong in the Roache case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.