Looking at the Weinstein case - and Cosby (past)... and, of course, dead people like Sir Edward Heath and Savile. Now there are advances in forensics - examples; DNA can now sometimes give dates and times (not realised by plod)... I find myself against this because many false accusers are genuinely deluded, have persuaded themselves - often after encouragements by police, media, lawyers, wives, husbands (and not forgetting the twin evils of drink and drugs). But some are deliberate (a couple of mine were purely motivated by money). In my experience Karma is the most reliable form of revenge (look at Kirk McIntyre). I would never have sued Clifford, for example; I knew Karma would take over (even if it did require a nudge). Some "bandwaggoners" - Gambo's phrase - really regret having decided (or been persuaded) to try jumping onto the speeding vehicle. Often the children suffer worst of all, when Mummy or Daddy reckons there's a few quid to be made by a little exaggeration. But why add to their hurt?

JK2006 wrote:
Looking at the Weinstein case - and Cosby (past)... and, of course, dead people like Sir Edward Heath and Savile. Now there are advances in forensics - examples; DNA can now sometimes give dates and times (not realised by plod)... I find myself against this because many false accusers are genuinely deluded, have persuaded themselves - often after encouragements by police, media, lawyers, wives, husbands (and not forgetting the twin evils of drink and drugs). But some are deliberate (a couple of mine were purely motivated by money). In my experience Karma is the most reliable form of revenge (look at Kirk McIntyre). I would never have sued Clifford, for example; I knew Karma would take over (even if it did require a nudge). Some "bandwaggoners" - Gambo's phrase - really regret having decided (or been persuaded) to try jumping onto the speeding vehicle. Often the children suffer worst of all, when Mummy or Daddy reckons there's a few quid to be made by a little exaggeration. But why add to their hurt?

Some might say that your second onslaught of false accusations was karma for the Clifford "helping"

Where it is obviously fraud, like insurance scams,I think they should prosecute, only I dont have any faith that they could tell the difference between crooks and sick, brainwashed,or mistaken people.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Looking at the Weinstein case - and Cosby (past)... and, of course, dead people like Sir Edward Heath and Savile. Now there are advances in forensics - examples; DNA can now sometimes give dates and times (not realised by plod)... I find myself against this because many false accusers are genuinely deluded, have persuaded themselves - often after encouragements by police, media, lawyers, wives, husbands (and not forgetting the twin evils of drink and drugs). But some are deliberate (a couple of mine were purely motivated by money). In my experience Karma is the most reliable form of revenge (look at Kirk McIntyre). I would never have sued Clifford, for example; I knew Karma would take over (even if it did require a nudge). Some "bandwaggoners" - Gambo's phrase - really regret having decided (or been persuaded) to try jumping onto the speeding vehicle. Often the children suffer worst of all, when Mummy or Daddy reckons there's a few quid to be made by a little exaggeration. But why add to their hurt?

Some might say that your second onslaught of false accusations was karma for the Clifford "helping"

Where it is obviously fraud, like insurance scams,I think they should prosecute, only I dont have any faith that they could tell the difference between crooks and sick, brainwashed,or mistaken people.

If you could prove that the accuser was definitely lying and that the accused had an alibi on the date of the alleged crime then yes they should be charged, however if it is a case of not having enough evidence to prove the crime then definitely not, otherwise no one would ever report a crime ever for fear of been imprisoned if it couldn't be proven.