Tory Rapist - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@Alan which of your buddies is it? any condemnation from you? or is he in the wrong party this time?

Apparently his name isnt being released to protect his identity, which is fucking staggering.

I cant be bothered doing another new Tory related topic, but obviously no connection to this thread, Mark Francois has deleted his social media accounts, and not done any media for a while, wonder if he is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2020 at 7:36 PM, kumnio said:

@Alan which of your buddies is it? any condemnation from you? or is he in the wrong party this time?

Apparently his name isnt being released to protect his identity, which is fucking staggering.

I cant be bothered doing another new Tory related topic, but obviously no connection to this thread, Mark Francois has deleted his social media accounts, and not done any media for a while, wonder if he is ok.

I've hardly seen it reported as well.

I actually agree with keeping the accused's identity a secret until after a verdict has been reached but of course it is the mind bending double standard and contrast to how Alex Salmond was treated that is the shocking thing.

Anyway I hope Mark Francois is ok. Maybe he and Alan are on holiday together.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I've hardly seen it reported as well.

I actually agree with keeping the accused's identity a secret until after a verdict has been reached but of course it is the mind bending double standard and contrast to how Alex Salmond was treated that is the shocking thing.

Anyway I hope Mark Francois is ok. Maybe he and Alan are on holiday together.

 

So do I, I cant really think of anything apart from paedophilic stuff which would be worse to be falsely accused of. Once tarnished, even being 100% innocent, the mud would stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kumnio said:

So do I, I cant really think of anything apart from paedophilic stuff which would be worse to be falsely accused of. Once tarnished, even being 100% innocent, the mud would stick.

It's a really tricky one.  Particularly in cases of serial abusers, for example Jim Torbett and Barry Bennell, publically naming them has caused other victims to come forward which has helped to secure convictions that wouldn't have happened otherwise.   Sexual offences are very difficult to prosecute for pretty obvious reasons and anything that helps that, so long as it doesn't compromise a fair trial, is okay in my book.  There probably needs to be a lot more help and support for people wrongly accused to start to rebuild their lives, I suspect that right now, they basically get shown the door at the court and that's it.

in this particular case, I smell a high court injunction is why he can't be named. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is cause it will identify the victim by naming the accuser. Not sure if I can explain why without exposing the victim. The press printed something that will allow jigsaw identification if the accused name is now released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, phart said:

My understanding is cause it will identify the victim by naming the accuser. Not sure if I can explain why without exposing the victim. The press printed something that will allow jigsaw identification if the accused name is now released.

That's kind of the same with a lot of these cases, Salmond in particular - and of course, if he's actually charged and goes to court, all bets will be off then.

You could well be right though, perhaps the press initially revealed too much about the victim's identity that when coupled with the identity of the accused, could well identify her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aaid said:

That's kind of the same with a lot of these cases, Salmond in particular - and of course, if he's actually charged and goes to court, all bets will be off then.

You could well be right though, perhaps the press initially revealed too much about the victim's identity that when coupled with the identity of the accused, could well identify her.

I'm just repeating what i saw some lawyer say on twitter when i looked into it, noticed the BBC had edited some pictures of newspapers and some newspapers had edited some stuff too, so obivously something was printed that in hindsight shouldn't have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aaid said:

It's a really tricky one.  Particularly in cases of serial abusers, for example Jim Torbett and Barry Bennell, publically naming them has caused other victims to come forward which has helped to secure convictions that wouldn't have happened otherwise.   Sexual offences are very difficult to prosecute for pretty obvious reasons and anything that helps that, so long as it doesn't compromise a fair trial, is okay in my book.  There probably needs to be a lot more help and support for people wrongly accused to start to rebuild their lives, I suspect that right now, they basically get shown the door at the court and that's it.

in this particular case, I smell a high court injunction is why he can't be named. 

Its very troubling, and while I agree that getting more victims to come forward can only be a good thing, I believe that naming a potentially innocent man of a crime like this isnt acceptable. You can help people all you like, but in an era when we can google a name, look on facebook and twitter etc in seconds, this doesn't delete history.

I wouldn't name these people until after the courts have decided their fate, for two reasons, firstly as said before, mud sticks, and secondly, in cases where women or men raise false rape/sexual assault they should be prosecuted, I believe these cases should be kept private as well, if these were made public, they will of course put genuine victims off of coming forward, which would be awful.

It must be about 15/20 years ago a snooker player called Quinten Hann was falsely accused of rape, and the details of the case were ridiculous. This story was on a BBC website list, Ive just noticed its from 3 years ago, so not sure why its being promoted on the site again, but its pretty bloody scandalous, and also shows just how comical some accusations can be.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39705424

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I actually forget that my fears of being ruled and run by people conditioned to be sexual predators to whoever they can , man , woman or child DO run the UK and it’s not just a bad dream . 
but aye , innocent until and all that                  Unless it’s AS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phart said:

I'm just repeating what i saw some lawyer say on twitter when i looked into it, noticed the BBC had edited some pictures of newspapers and some newspapers had edited some stuff too, so obivously something was printed that in hindsight shouldn't have been.

I may have seen the same tweet.   Guy said words to the effect "I know why they can't name him bit for legal reasons can't explain it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...