www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-20...use-allegations.html

Once accusations have been made I doubt if his career can ever be the same again.

another reason why there has to be a time limit on "historic abuse" and anonymity for those accused..just as there is for the accuser.

another reason why there has to be a time limit on "historic abuse" and anonymity for those accused..just as there is for the accuser.

I agree that there should be anonymity for both the accuser and the accused, however I think it would be wrong to set a time limit on cases of historical abuse as many victims have to come to terms in their own time with what has happened to them whether that be 5, or 50 years time etc.

It also means that the abuser can never think that they are beyond prosecution and that if they have ever done wrong in the past they can always expect a knock on the door from the police however long it's been.

I totally disagree Carl.

The very reason there are time limits on prosecution of crimes (except murder) is because of the erosion of evidence.

In 99% of historic abuse cases it comes down to one person's word against another and in the present atmosphere of hysteria juries are easily persuaded that a mere accusation is enough. The burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove innocence. The law is always about striking a balance.

If you haven't 'come to terms' with what happened 20 years ago (let alone 50) I'd say you have bigger problems than abuse.

Tell me why I shouldn't expect the persons that burgled my flat 25 years ago and stole a band's (un-insured) equipment that set them back emotionally and professionally.

I could easily say it had lasting effects upon certain band members ( 2 became junkies)..etc etc.

In fact I could blame my entire life on events from 30 /40 /50 years ago.

Poor Michael Le Vell /Turner has still had his life turned upside down in the meantime, and the spectre of this allegation hanging over him.

I personally think though that the Coronation Street scriptwriters should be prosecuted for the Sophie/Sian/Amber/Wedding storyline - am I alone in finding the story of the young (and very childlike - or their portrayal certainly is) girls of that little Street all 'out' lesbians as disturbing as it is totally unrealistic? It's as if someone is deliberately seeing what they can get away with in terms of the completely absurd?

Veritas, I think there is a world of difference between someone having their guitar nicked or being sexually abused.

I know which one of them I would prefer to happen to me.

And what time limit would you set on cases of historical abuse?
If what you are saying is true about the erosion of evidence a victim can get rid of all the forensic evidence by having a bath/shower shortly after the abuse has taken place which most victims do instinctively to get rid of the feeling of being violated rather than rushing to phone 999 due to the trauma of it all.

Setting a time limit would be pointless.

Carl wrote:
Veritas, I think there is a world of difference between someone having their guitar nicked or being sexually abused.

I know which one of them I would prefer to happen to me.

And what time limit would you set on cases of historical abuse?
If what you are saying is true about the erosion of evidence a victim can get rid of all the forensic evidence by having a bath/shower shortly after the abuse has taken place which most victims do instinctively to get rid of the feeling of being violated rather than rushing to phone 999 due to the trauma of it all.

Setting a time limit would be pointless.

we will see in time (unless JK is right and we vanish) whether historic abuse is a legitimate exercise. If there are still cases in 100 years.

Time limits ?..for greater minds than mine.

ps: I was abused twice by an 'Uncle Ernie' when young. It's never crossed my mind ever to demand retribution (he's been dead years ago) but far worse things have happened since..such as those burglaries..had far more lasting damage.

there is the problem of compensation..it sets up a reason to accuse.

Veritas hits nail on head. Greed is the key component.

Funnily enough, in my case I don't think it was.
Although my false accusers (many of whom had their charges disproved or thrown out - yet still claimed and got compensation) made, according to the Mail, £160,000 - apart from hundreds of thousands also earned from the media for their "stories", I think the No1 motive was a desire for attention and sympathy.

The Blame Game - Victim adoration - the only way many criminals and drug users could get sympathy from society and the caring.

"Oh you poor dear; it ruined your life. That explains your failure/crimes/addiction. It's all someone else's fault".

That, in my case, was a more powerful motive for most of my false accusers than hard cash in many cases.

My false accuser it was a mix.
I only found out in court she'd made the allegation 2 days before my ex-wife was due to get married,and at a time she was getting into serious trouble with social services.
Later however after my arrest 6 years later she added a much more serious offense,compensation being much,much more if this was proven.

On a separate note I was made aware that even if no conviction is achieved they may still claim compensation.Is it possible for me to find out if she has?

It is worth noting that up until January 2008 victims of sexual abuse only had 6 years from the time of the attack to claim compensation and in the cases of child sexual abuse cases only 6 years after the date they turn 18.

This landmark ruling was made when a woman who had been raped by the lottery winner Iorworth Hoare challenged this by taking it to the house of Lords.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7216895.stm

veritas wrote:
I totally disagree Carl.

The very reason there are time limits on prosecution of crimes (except murder) is because of the erosion of evidence.

In 99% of historic abuse cases it comes down to one person's word against another and in the present atmosphere of hysteria juries are easily persuaded that a mere accusation is enough. The burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove innocence. The law is always about striking a balance.

I agree, veritas (shock !!!!)

By allowing time to elapse, possible forensic evidence will disappear ... evidence which may have proved the claimants case, but equally evidence that may have proved the claimant a liar.

So how long a time limit would you set? 20 minutes by the sound of it