Look at these quotes from Jan Street Porwwtah

"The #MeToo movement has used unsubstantiated allegations on social media to spotlight hundreds of abusers all over the world."

THEY ARE NOT VICTIMS THEY ARE ACCUSERS

"Dozens of victims have come forward (particularly in the case of Harvey Weinstein) as a result of one victim daring to come forward."

THEY ARE NOT VICTIMS THEY ARE ACCUSERS

"And, when many of the victims tell the same story, we might be tempted to assume they are telling the truth.#

THEY ARE NOT VICTIMS THEY ARE ACCUSERS.

They can only be classed as a victim of its proved that the alleged crime took place and just like 'Nick The Fantasist' who story was 'credible and true' there are lying nasty people out in the wide world.

Source
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-59675...-guilty-not-BBC.html

"Dozens of victims have come forward (particularly in the case of Harvey Weinstein) as a result of one victim daring to come forward."
THEY ARE NOT VICTIMS THEY ARE ACCUSERS

Many victims have come forward. That is a fact unless you believe no crimes have ever been committed




"And, when many of the victims tell the same story, we might be tempted to assume they are telling the truth.#
THEY ARE NOT VICTIMS THEY ARE ACCUSERS

One of the ways our legal system works is by hearing evidence and making a judgement so when lots of accusers tell the same story then it is likely to be correct


I agree not all accusers will be victims but their story should be heard. The accused also requires protection and their name shouldn't be published until they are at least formally charged and in some cases not until later.

Blue Boy wrote:
One of the ways our legal system works is by hearing evidence and making a judgement so when lots of accusers tell the same story then it is likely to be correct
This is the age of the internet. Stories go online immediately and stay there, so people can research stories and copy each other. (I'm convinced this happened in the Rolf Harris case.) Accusers could also have a financial motive, i.e. media payments, compensation payments through the courts or book sales (Rose McGowan had an autobiography out this year entitled "Brave"). The only evidence needed is their word, i.e. no need to bother with physical evidence, medical reports, paper trail, etc. So it's likely to be easier than benefit fraud or insurance fraud. They can also remain anonymous for life if they wish (at least in the UK). So multiple claims doesn't in my view make them more likely to be true, just as multiple claims of whiplash injury after a motorway pile-up doesn't necessarily mean any or all the claimants are telling the truth. I believe that if the first person to make the claim is lying, then anyone saying "me too" must logically also be lying, in the same way as if a schoolchild copies a bad piece of homework their homework will be wrong too. I think it's very unlikely that an initial false accuser would by chance accuse a genuine serial abuser (unless you subscribe to the idea that all men are rapists). But if the first person to come forward with a claim is telling the truth, subsequent claims could be all true, partly true or completely untrue.

With Weinstein, I can believe he was guilty of low-level sex pest behaviour that people would have objected to and had trouble knowing how to respond to and some brushed off as "just Harvey" rather than reporting to police but not rape, when the first person to claim this (McGowan) reportedly stripped off and got into a hot tub with him prior to the alleged rape, posed smiling nestled against him at an awards show some years later (utterly inconsistent with being a crime victim, in my view), and of course had a book to sell, along with her other exhibitionist behaviour.

Always been a big mouth with little talent....

Well said...

Give JSP her due she is challenging it but needs a little education on what a 'victim' is.

The witness system finds people innocent or guilty all the time and the media have influenced legal decision makers for the last 150 years via newspapers.
It hasnt just been sex crimes. I agree on annonymous status for those who are accused but not charged. I certainly dont think they are all innocent however. If there is sufficent doubt they should be tried and yes some will be innocent but there will be others who are guulty