Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Alexis Jay says false allegations are rare
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
Meanwhile the May woman sets up another Inquiry - into contaminated blood in the 70s! For God's Sake woman get on with TODAY and stop pandering to the media and your stupid image. Blood is being contaminated hourly by your useless premiership. |
|
Jo |
Wonder if this woman or similar have been tugging at Alexis Jay's heartstrings.
twitter.com/moor_facts/status/884710351434125312 |
|
Jo |
It doesn't sound as if false allegations are very high on the radar or as if the inquiry has heard from anyone falsely accused despite apparently investigating the supposed Westminster VIP paedophile ring imagined by "Nick".
"Prof Jay said she could not comment specifically on any of the 13 separate but related investigations the inquiry is conducting. These include the supposed Westminster VIP paedophile ring, where the key witness in a now-aborted police inquiry, known as ‘Nick’, has been discredited ...
Prof Jay said she was sure that false accusations were rare, pointing out that while some have suggested bogus claimants are driven by the lure of compensation, the average settlement paid to victims is a modest £14,000.
But she added: ‘I don’t underestimate the seriousness of false accusations and we may look in the wider sense at some aspects of that later in the year… nobody is in any doubt that for those who have been the subject of false accusations, it must be a truly terrible experience.’ She said the inquiry would consider possible legal reforms which might both protect the innocent and make it easier for the guilty to be brought to justice."
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4678490...y.html#ixzz4mWFNDPiK
According to Moor Larkin, "Nick" also accused Jimmy Savile under a different name.
jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2016/02/wall-of-silence.html
The idea of £14,000 being modest makes one wonder if she had lost touch with reality or is capable of persuading herself of things that are not true. Rather worrying for someone in that role. |
|
JK2006 |
Very good and fair comments. Those in favour of locking up innocent men and women will say "but in sex matters there is very rarely any third person present or any solid evidence". The answer is - in most crimes the same. Thieves have learned to wipe fingerprints; murderers try not to leave DNA; fraudsters clear their paths. But in no other area is the claimant's word alone good enough to convict an innocent person. And claimants can be very believable; often believing themselves (as do those "abducted by aliens" - and poor "Nick" who was "credible and true" in his fantasies about former Prime Ministers, MPs and celebrities). |
|
John Marsh |
The evidence presents itself time and again that people in general follow belief rather than facts established by reason.
This enquiry in principle is a good thing. BUT without accepting that people lie. That false allegations exist and are NOT rare then there is no basis to make recommendations. And the whole enquiry is not only wasted time but worst it is a step backwards, another lost opportunity. Then Honey is correct in her assessment "Alexis Jay is a fool!"
So consider the situation. Where it is a person's word only in the present referring to past times:
Accused is:
A. Guilty - then are all the complainants telling the truth as it relates to them?
At a pure guess, most probably are telling the truth, with some false allegations. What is known - All public police enquiries receive hoax and misleading responses even when the crime is known to have happened for certain.
Reality, without facts from the actual time in most cases there is no real way to know if the complainants of the truly guilty are all 100% true or 0% true. Or somewhere in between. How can Alexis Jay know that any of it is true?
B. Not Guilty - Then any complainant is a false accuser.
How can the enquiry know they have the right information???
So the only way any justice can be really achieved for the innocent and the real victims is to locate amongst the population those cases where written and investigated reports exist from time of the abuse. Where collusion and other misleading factors are excluded.
The Appeal Court system / justice system is founded on nonsense, a lie, where it is not acknowledged that false allegations do and often happen.
From IN THE MATTER OF THE LATE JIMMY SAVILE
Report to the Director of Public Prosecutions
by
Alison Levitt Q.C.
states
188. ... The prosecutor must further assume that the jury will faithfully apply directions from the judge, such as the fact that they can still convict even where it is one person’s word against another’s without any supporting evidence.
"...still convict even where it is one person’s word against another’s without any supporting evidence" This legal nonsense undermines justice and the law in general. The conviction standard can NOT be attained without supporting evidence. One person's word can NEVER reach the "sure" level / "beyond reasonable doubt" level.
The is true even of many voices coming forward years later where the information is available to make allegations and often collect 14,000 which is a better choice than trying to defraud the benefit system. And it is known that Alexis Jay and thousands of other in responsible positions do not want to admit to their Santa Claus / seen an alien kinda of belief approach.
Do they really believe if they went to any huge gathering about alien encounter belief or religious something or other belief due to the numbers so it must be true.
My personal view is I support public enquiries. That where a non political and a honest approach is taken. A pro evidence approach. And the group understand words like facts, truth, integrity... and really want to apply them in order to approach the known problems that do exist to some degree (Unknown degree, as very few indeed sensible enquiries) then the enquiry is good thing, the right thing to do as opposed to ignoring the problems and doing nothing.
(Wrong approach as appears to be happening then doing nothing would most likely be better) |
|
|
|
