Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Stephen Fry...HERO
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Anon |
robbiex wrote:
I agree with him up to a point, but as one poster points out, just because someone is found not guilty in a case of sexual abuse, this does not mean that the accuser was lying. It may very well mean that there wasn't enough evidence to convict
In these cases the accuser should not be punished, otherwise noone would bring anything to court and people would be free to commit these crimes without fear of apprisals.
P.s in the case I was a witness for where a guy I knew was guilty got off because they're wasn't considered to be enough evidence he got 'not proven', rather than 'not guilty', which I think means that if more evidence came to light he could still be convicted of it in the future (doubt that'll happen though)... |
|
Anon |
robbiex wrote:
I agree with him up to a point, but as one poster points out, just because someone is found not guilty in a case of sexual abuse, this does not mean that the accuser was lying. It may very well mean that there wasn't enough evidence to convict
In these cases the accuser should not be punished, otherwise noone would bring anything to court and people would be free to commit these crimes without fear of apprisals.
Exactly, of course they're are lots of cases where there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict and this is not evidence that the complainant was lying (it's happened to me when I was a witness for something the guy got off - but I still know he committed the crime cos I seen it with my own eyes, but it simply couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury).
It should only be, and only is, people that can be proven or shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been lying and making a deliberate false complaint that should be prosecuted and that is the case anyway, and even as it stands incidences like these are frequent enough for it to be considered a problem and a hell of a lot more frequent that the media seem to want us to believe (sometimes), with headlines such as 'false rape allegations are extremely rare', 'as low as 1% of all allegations' etc, which is probably (based on what I can see) bs and I fail to see how they can actually know this for a fact, when, as they always complain, convictions for rape after a person has been accused/charged/prosecuted are so low, how the hell do they know that it is not because at least some of these people who weren't convicted were not convicted because they were actually innocent? They don't...  |
|
Chris Retro |
I see Stephen is being barracked by a certain Asda-price personal injury lawyer and her team of idiots.
twitter.com/IanMcFadyen1966/status/489361126405468160
They want to invite him to "debate". Well, we know from Mike Smith (amongst others) how such 'debates' are organised in todays media
mikesmithinlondon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10...ldnt-make-it-up.html |
|
JK2006 |
Stephen says he's had THOUSANDS of supportive messages - the vast majority hate paedophilia and hate injustice and understand his point exactly. Is the tide turning? I'd have bet 85% would have called him a Paedo Apologist. |
|
Chris Retro |
Always good to see Icke's "Truthers" are backing arrest, trial & conviction without evidence, etc - someday soon we'll all be free, eh.
Of course not all accusations are false, exaggerated or malicious, but the recent (and not so recent in certain cases) show trials show us that ANYONE (not just the famous or wealthy) has no defence against even the most bizarre and surreal historic accusations. No person - male or female, gay or straight- is safe.
Unless you have a genuine confession of guilt it is impossible to state whether some misdemeanour happened lifetimes ago. |
|
|
|
