70soghuBMoj(ld!L!~~_7.JPG "merehazle"){kind=avatar}
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
Hard luck Ron, but at least you will know how they come at you next time 
I'm 
you fell for it though.
See you.
Paul O'Grady backs Corrie star Michael Le Vell and claims TV stars are hounded while corrupt sportsmen, politicians and bankers escape scrutiny
- ITV presenter blasts sex abuse claims against actor as 'completely false'
- He says TV stars are subject to witch hunts
- Bankers and politicians should be investigated, he added.. 23 September 2013 |
Paul O'Grady has spoken out in support of soap actor Michael Le Vell, who was recently cleared of sex abuse charges
Comedian Paul O'Grady has thrown his support behind soap star Michael Le Vell, claiming the Coronation Street actor has been the victim of a 'witch hunt'.
Le Vell was cleared of child sex charges just two weeks ago and O'Grady, the presenter of ITV's For The Love Of Dogs, called the claims made against the TV veteran 'completely false'.
He also said prominent sports stars get away with shocking behaviour while TV stars are relentlessly pursued.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429750/Paul-OGrady-backs-Corrie-star-Michael-Le-Vell-says-T...
@merehazle wrote:Hard luck Ron, but at least you will know how they come at you next time
I'm
See you.
I still stand by my original assertions, and all the posts on here have only strengthened my point of view, and given it more credence.
Being found not guilty means "Not Guilty"
It does not mean anything other then that.
And if you are innocent, then your accuser has lied.
Unfortunately once you have been accused of something as horrendous as a sexual offence you are automatically stigmatized forever, and even if, and when a Court of Law finds you not guilty, the accuser is not cautioned, pilloried, blamed, call it what you will.
Perhaps there might not be false accusations if a not guilty verdict brought the full force of the law down, on the liars.
@ronnybabes wrote:
@merehazle wrote:Hard luck Ron, but at least you will know how they come at you next time
I'm
See you.
I still stand by my original assertions, and all the posts on here have only strengthened my point of view, and given it more credence.
Being found not guilty means "Not Guilty"
It does not mean anything other then that.
And if you are innocent, then your accuser has lied.
Unfortunately once you have been accused of something as horrendous as a sexual offence you are automatically stigmatized forever, and even if, and when a Court of Law finds you not guilty, the accuser is not cautioned, pilloried, blamed, call it what you will.
Perhaps there might not be false accusations if a not guilty verdict brought the full force of the law down, on the liars.
WRONG !!!
It is EXACTLY that attitude that discourages so many victims of **bleep** from appearing in court as a prosecution witness.
On the one hand you are willing to support the legal system by accepting that an accused is innocent unles a jury finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt whilst at the same time refusing to give those same rights to an accuser.
@upthecreekyetagain wrote:
@ronnybabes wrote:
@merehazle wrote:Hard luck Ron, but at least you will know how they come at you next time
I'm
See you.
I still stand by my original assertions, and all the posts on here have only strengthened my point of view, and given it more credence.
Being found not guilty means "Not Guilty"
It does not mean anything other then that.
And if you are innocent, then your accuser has lied.
Unfortunately once you have been accused of something as horrendous as a sexual offence you are automatically stigmatized forever, and even if, and when a Court of Law finds you not guilty, the accuser is not cautioned, pilloried, blamed, call it what you will.
Perhaps there might not be false accusations if a not guilty verdict brought the full force of the law down, on the liars.
WRONG !!!
It is EXACTLY that attitude that discourages so many victims of **bleep** from appearing in court as a prosecution witness.
On the one hand you are willing to support the legal system by accepting that an accused is innocent unles a jury finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt whilst at the same time refusing to give those same rights to an accuser.
Quick hypothetical scenario....
As happened to Michael le Vell you are falsely accused of a sexual offence by a family friend.
You are completely innocent.
You protest and protest, but are villified, and the stigma is firmly attached.
You are abused, bullied, taunted, and a lot worse.
Even friends doubt you.
Others keep their distance, they don't want to be seen associating with you.
Joy of joys - justice prevails you are found innocent. As you rightly are.
She lied obviously.......Because you did not do it, right?
So, if she lied it must be for the compensation. Why else?
Nothing happened, she lied. end of...
But now you find that although you are innocent, people say that might be so, but ..... she did not lie.
She was only telling the truth as she saw it.
Please don't tell me you would accept that.
Of course you wouldn't, even if you said you would.
You would, or should, be very angry. (putting it mildly)
Now.... If she did not lie then however you dress it up, you are not innocent.
However you have been found "not guilty" and completely exonerated.
So shout it out... She is a Liar". isn't she?
(End of hypothetical scenario)
