It would be nice to think *someone* may have brought the satirical spoofs of VictoriaLucas38 to the attention of the esteemed Mr Fry (plus certain blogs)...

evidence of the bullying climate at present - received a smattering of applause. Guarantee many agree with him but Labour are reveling in this as a way of attacking the Tories.

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.

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.



If someone is acquitted it means they didn't do it, not that they did it and got away with it!

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.

Works both ways Robbie.The innocent sit in jails,the guilty walk the streets.Had you followed the logic of some more experienced souls on here you would realise that the biggest problems on these type of cases are 'lack of evidence' and 'lack of transparency'.

You can't blame the accusers when it gets to court,the police and CPS put it there,but it would be nice if falsely accused could sue those who make allegations,after all reporting things to the police put them 'in the public domain',except of course on sexual crime the accuser is fully protected,unlike in other crimes.Also they have guaranteed anonymity,whatever their background.

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.

guess that means just because they are found guilty doesn't mean they are

Fry is now the subject of a thread on the David Icke Forum.
No doubt because there is a masonic lodge no less than 20 miles from where he once drove past. And if you jumble up the words in his name and add some, take a few away it spells SATANIC SEX ABUSE ORGY.

Heres the thread. www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277513

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
If someone is acquitted it means they didn't do it, not that they did it and got away with it![/quote]

If you believe that then you believe if someone is found guilty they did do the crime.

I think you'll find at least one poster on this board disagreeing with you

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
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.



If someone is acquitted it means they didn't do it, not that they did it and got away with it!

Not necessarily, it could well mean that there isn't enough evidence.

Blue Boy wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
If someone is acquitted it means they didn't do it, not that they did it and got away with it!

If you believe that then you believe if someone is found guilty they did do the crime.

I think you'll find at least one poster on this board disagreeing with you[/quote]


Not necessarily. It is one thing to suspect that someone has been wrongly convicted, and quite another to keep accusing someone after acquittal. It's just not cricket.

robbiex wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
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.



If someone is acquitted it means they didn't do it, not that they did it and got away with it!

Not necessarily, it could well mean that there isn't enough evidence.


If there isnt enough evidence for a conviction it is not supposed to get to court.

Tut. I had premature posting syndrome. I meant to say that there has to be a "reasonable prospect of conviction" before it can go to court.

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.

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.

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

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...

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)...