trying to make a few pound.

[balto]

Read this story just now to me is seems she is just trying to make a quick pound or 2, hope justice is done.

http://news.aol.co.uk/al-fayed-sex-a...23232405059835

[brokencross]

Must admit that was my first thought as well.

[balto]

seems to me it is to easy to accuse a man of a sex attack, just isnt so easy for the man to prove his innocence.

[pat]

Why do they name the person who is SUPPOSED to have committed a sex offence but NEVER publish the persons name who has made the accusation.

Frequently the person accused is proved not to have done it but their name has been dragged through the papers - I have never seen a retraction or an INNOCENT OF SUPPOSED SEX OFFENCE as the headlines.

The accused person then has to live with folk who have read or heard story of always thinking of them as a sex offender - no smoke without fire.

If they are going to name people in these cases the both names should be named or in fact no names should be issued until the person has been charged by the police.

I have known several folk who have been accused of a supposed sexual offence - once the accused was with a group of our friends when the supposed offence took place - despite 10 witness vouching this person did not commit the offence as accused did not leave the group, was not in the area it took place, this person was named and shamed in the papers.

Definitely not for naming and shaming until PROVED GUILTY.

[balto]

Why do they name the person who is SUPPOSED to have committed a sex offence but NEVER publish the persons name who has made the accusation.

Frequently the person accused is proved not to have done it but their name has been dragged through the papers - I have never seen a retraction or an INNOCENT OF SUPPOSED SEX OFFENCE as the headlines.

The accused person then has to live with folk who have read or heard story of always thinking of them as a sex offender - no smoke without fire.

If they are going to name people in these cases the both names should be named or in fact no names should be issued until the person has been charged by the police.

I have known several folk who have been accused of a supposed sexual offence - once the accused was with a group of our friends when the supposed offence took place - despite 10 witness vouching this person did not commit the offence as accused did not leave the group, was not in the area it took place, this person was named and shamed in the papers.

Definitely not for naming and shaming until PROVED GUILTY.

i know of one chap who ended up going to prison for it, just because the female got caught by her boyfriend with the poor chap. it is to easy, but then you get cases where a woman has been attacked but it cant be proven so it gets throwen out of court, way to mixed up.

[Fluff]

It is such a difficult subject, and I am torn for both sides. On the one hand, what if the attacker is innocent? but on the other, with the prosecution rate so low in this country attackers are going free.
I know this is maybe a controversial thing to say, but at least them being named (and they are guilty) women know to be alittle more wary of this person.

[pat]

Where else in the world do they name people before they are charged - in UK they name the person being QUESTIONED (NOT CHARGED) and if the press get hold of it THE PERSON IS A SEX OFFENDER - that is what is planted in everyones mind

How many folk have accused someone, then been found to be telling the biggest pack of porkies - frequently to get back at expartner, or someone famous they fancy has rejected them, or been caught by partner doing something they should not have been doing then accuse the third party of a sexual offence to try to cover situation only for it to go much further when it is reported (usually not realising how serious these cases are taken by the police) then frightened to tell the truth.

As far as I am concerned NO NAMES UNTIL PROVED GUILTY and if the person who accuses is found to be telling porkies then that person should have the full weight of the law brought to bear and sentenced accordinglywith the ensuing publicity.

No names until found guilty of any crime - whatever it may be.

[TBH]

This could be pay-back time for Mr Al Fayed's accusations against the royal family, It wouldn't surprise me. A car crash would be too obvious, discrediting him is much more fun and just as effective.

[Sapphire2803]

This could be pay-back time for Mr Al Fayed's accusations against the royal family, It wouldn't surprise me. A car crash would be too obvious, discrediting him is much more fun and just as effective.

Ooh! Conspiracy theories, this could be fun!

*Sits back to watch the thread take the usual route into nonense and personal insults*

[TBH]

Ooh! Conspiracy theories, this could be fun!

*Sits back to watch the thread take the usual route into nonense and personal insults*

Could you spare some tinfoil?

[Mik.M.]

Where else in the world do they name people before they are charged - in UK they name the person being QUESTIONED (NOT CHARGED) and if the press get hold of it THE PERSON IS A SEX OFFENDER - that is what is planted in everyones mind

How many folk have accused someone, then been found to be telling the biggest pack of porkies - frequently to get back at expartner, or someone famous they fancy has rejected them, or been caught by partner doing something they should not have been doing then accuse the third party of a sexual offence to try to cover situation only for it to go much further when it is reported (usually not realising how serious these cases are taken by the police) then frightened to tell the truth.

As far as I am concerned NO NAMES UNTIL PROVED GUILTY and if the person who accuses is found to be telling porkies then that person should have the full weight of the law brought to bear and sentenced accordinglywith the ensuing publicity.

No names until found guilty of any crime - whatever it may be.

My wifes name was published in the paper,but the person who assaulted her wasn`t ,even when he was found guilty in a court of law.