news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8443339.stm


Tough rugby player Brian Moore has revealed that he was abused as a child. Many of his ex-school mates have now revealed that they were also abused.

I guess that most people on this site will think that he wasn't really abused and is just trying to sell more copies of his autobiography, and his school mates may be trying to make money by selling stories (unlikely particularly when there are no celebs involved in the abuse).

This could be true, however more likely, he hasn't revealed it before because there is a stigma attached to even been the victim of such a crime and revealing such a thing would be seen as a weakness.

True Robbie but I think if I were Esther Rantzen or any of the other hugely sensitive and generous Child Abuse experts I might offer three words of advice...

GET OVER IT!

I think the majority of people on this board do acknowledge that there are genuine cases of child abuse. The reason why so many ask questions (taken by others to believe that they think everyone is innocent) is that there have been several cases of proven false allegation and wrongful conviction yet, despite these cases, no measures have been taken to prevent this from happening again. In fact, over the past few years it has become even easier to convict without evidence.

Asking questions is not the same as passing judgement.

Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to the presumption of innocence, even those who are opposed to fair hearings and the presumption of innocence.

Absolutely JC; spot on.

Brian Moore was on radio 2 today and he emphasised that it was important that society didn't get too paranoid with things like crb checks for parents taking their children's friends to sports events etc.

JC wrote:
In fact, over the past few years it has become even easier to convict without evidence.

Asking questions is not the same as passing judgement.

Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to the presumption of innocence, even those who are opposed to fair hearings and the presumption of innocence.

Also agreed ... but did you notice that yesterday Britain's first no-Jury trial started (after the prosecution failed to get a conviction the normal way?)

Very dangerous territory.

My one and only experience of being on trial left me wishing I'd not had a jury. The local media had speculated on my case on and off over a period of 14 months before the trial. The court selected it's jury members from that same local area. Despite the judge instructing them to disregard anything they had previously seen or heard in the media, it was pretty obvious they would not be able to.

The judge never seemed to be convinced by the prosecution case and, after the guilty verdict, said that it was very unfortunate for me that things had turned out the way they did. I'm still convinced that if my useless barrister had dared to suggest that as no evidence had been produced by the prosecution and the "witnesses" had contradicted each other there was no case to answer, the judge would have dismissed the case. At the very least my barrister should have asked that the trial be moved out of the area of media coverage so that an impartial jury could be selected.

So, juries can go both ways. A judge is more likely to apply the rules of law and less likely to be swayed by media coverage. I would favour the defendant being given the option of having a jury of not.