cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home
Anonymity for False Accusers PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 01 October 2016
An essential legal loophole that needs closing. Cliff, Gambo, Lady Brittan and others are covering this and many other aspects of the False Allegations Industry at the House of Lords in a major debate in a couple of weeks and even I am impressed by the points that will be made.

The first interesting area is the Danny Day/David Bryant case - the appeal was granted in seconds after Day chose to bravely waive his anonymity when he sued the Council for 200,000 quid. Greed is the first and best reason to drop anonymity.

Many others do it in return for hefty media interview fees (often disguised by the tabloids as - a fee for this interview has been donated to charity - when the largest sum covers expenses).

And when identity has been revealed, it takes very little detective work to uncover the reasons for the lies. Something I believe the police should do before charging anyone in every case.

If the victim has not bravely waived his or her anonymity - there is not a lot that can be done in cases where the falsely accused has been convicted. Except - an idea - see below.

However when the verdict is Not Guilty, this anonymity is really unfair and unjustifiable. It is there, of course, to protect those who come forward about real abuse and are unable to provide sufficient evidence. But the law itself has been widely abused. Now criminals wishing to pervert the course of justice, for whatever reason, benefit from it.

As do bent lawyers and corrupt cops assisting those crimes.

It has started to become obvious to almost everyone that this must be changed. But how about those wrongly convicted, like David Bryant, when the false accuser fails to trip him or herself up in their rush to grab cash?

I suggest innocent inmates should consider someone else making an accusation against the original false accuser - obviously it must be a real, genuine allegation, but a husband, wife, son or daughter could indeed be the victim of a blackmail attempt or even some kind of sexual abuse. We all know that such an allegation must be believed, must be investigated and can also be publicised in local or national press and media.

Thereby revealing the name, address and details of the false accuser and opening his or her character for examination. Who knows what other details may emerge - as they did about Danny Day?

If I were Nick or any of the other celebrity false accusers, I would be nervous. What is good for the goose...

 
< Prev   Next >