This is frightening, no matter how tough you are.

[blackburn_stevie]

http://tinyurl.com/jw8rhxh

This is the video that will make most parents squirm. 

It's what happened when a man (vetted and given the job) tried to entice single boys and girls out of a Park or Swing area away from their parents. If you didn't see it earlier today on the News, take note and pass it on to all parents and other folk with responsibility over kids.

[ronnybabes]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Time to go back and look at page one? Start at #10 and read on?

It's time to stop all these historical cases where there's no evidence apart from that of an accuser (or accusers).

Also, do a bit of research about Freud and see what thinking he introduced? His methods led to implanted false memory for a start. Also, anyone remember the Cleveland cases in the late 80's?

Absolutely CD.

That is why I'm stressing my point of view so strongly. 

@creeky wrote:

A person in this country is innocent until found guilty and the accuser in the LeVell case has NOT been tried for any crime let alone found guilty - refusal to accept that undermines the very verdict in this case.

Do me a favour, Michael le Vell was considered a paedophile by many, as soon as the accusations became public.

Now that he has been found not guilty,

(and the only way that can be a true verdict was if the accuser lied)  there is this debate that she was still telling the truth.

"Innocent until found guilty".  Phooey!!

Guilty even though found innocent seems to the view of some.

A refusal to accept that if he is innocent, then she must have lied undermines the very verdict in the case of Michael le Vell. 

[bankhaunter]

Do me a favour, Michael le Vell was considered a paedophile by many, as soon as the accusations became public.

Isn't that using the same sort of consideration as you are using when you consider the accuser must have lied?

You cannot criticise others for doing exactly what you are now doing.

I agree with Creeky.

[ronnybabes]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

Do me a favour, Michael le Vell was considered a paedophile by many, as soon as the accusations became public.

Isn't that using the same sort of consideration as you are using when you consider the accuser must have lied?

You cannot criticise others for doing exactly what you are now doing.

I agree with Creeky.

It''s okay to agree with Creeky, that is the nature of a debate, and a discussion forum.

I try not to criticise, I only try to put  put a point of view across.

As for:

" Isn't that using the same sort of consideration as you are using when you consider the accuser must have lied?"

Well actually "No". The difference is; Michael le Vell is innocent, ergo; the accusation was, and is untrue.

---

[tommy.irene]

[tommy.irene]

[tommy.irene]

[joe_bloggs*]

From Black's Law Dictionary:

What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?

A verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.

http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/

[upthecreekyetagain]

Ronny - simple question - do you believe in and support the basis of the British legal system that a person is innocent until found guilty?

If you do then you cannot support the idea that the accuser in the LeVell case is guilty of lying without a court case where a jury brings in a verdict of guilty against her.

If you don't support the basis of the British legal system then the verdict of not guilty delivered by that same system must be worthless.

[cee-dee]

The British Legal System does not actually say in so many words that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

As far as I'm aware, it also doesn't say that after a Not Guilty verdict the acquitted may not be innocent.

It certinly doesn't say that after a Not Guilty verdict the accuser is a liar.

I think lay people invent their interpretation of the Law then repeat it often enough until the common belief is that interpretation ISthe Law. It isn't!

[upthecreekyetagain]

The British Legal System does not actually say in so many words that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - "everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"

[tommy.irene]

So is he GUILTY or not.. he seems to still be Guilty on this thread....His mate KEN is up next.. Is Ken Guilty or not.. See post 64..

[cee-dee]

Research the phrase in British Law.

[tommy.irene]

New Savile abuse victims are STILL coming forward a year after paedophile presenter's reign of terror was exposed

• Police say Jimmy Savile abused at least 1,300 people over 54 years
• Children's charity NSPCC says more victims are still coming forward
• Charity has also seen an overall surge in the number of child victims of sexual abuse and **bleep** contacting them 
  
• The number of cases it is referring to police and social services is up 84%
  

The NSPCC is still receiving calls from victims of Jimmy Savile a year on from the TV documentary which exposed the serial paedophile’s reign of terror.

Police say there the former BBC broadcaster abused at least 1,300 people over 54 years - but the children’s charity said more were still coming forward.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442231/Jimmy-Savile-abuse-victims-STILL-coming-forward-year... 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Research the phrase in British Law.

---

Try The Human Rights Act 1998

And ECHR was ratified by the UK in 1966

[cee-dee]

I did that's why I said what I did.

People miss out an important word in that you have a right to "be presumed innocent until you are proven guilty".

It doesn't mean you ARE innocent which is what people keeps saying.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I did that's why I said what I did.

People miss out an important word in that you have a right to "be presumed innocent until you are proven guilty".

It doesn't mean you ARE innocent which is what people keeps saying.

---

So why do I need to research "BRITISH Law"?

The Human Rights Act brings into BRITISH law articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and quotes Article 6 in the Act.

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

You are of course correct about the word "presumed" being ignored by many - The purpose of a trial is to find if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime or not - if the evidence is not sufficient then a defendant is found 'not guilty' and presumed innocent.

It would be very strange to have a system where it was up to the defendant to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt!!!

[cee-dee]

Glad we've cleared that bit up.

Now, in such cases as has been discussed, the accused has to offer some sort of defence because if he doesn't, the inference is that either he's got something to hide or he's faced with trying to defend the indefensible.

He's not supposed to have to prove his innocence but the upshot is that remaining silent does harm his defence.

How can you defend an accusation that you'd done something up to 40 years ago when there's absolutely no physical or forensic evidence and the only evidence is the verbal evidence of your accuser and others the accuser claims to have "told"?

It comes down to who is the most convincing player, the defendent or the accuser and that can hardly be "justice" for either party?

[lost.parrot]

or he's faced with trying to defend the indefensible.

They don't.It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.A such the system is weighted in favor of the defendant

May come as a surprise, but most similar crimes rarely have an audience, and often it's not that an act took place, but that consent was given
What should the legal system do, declare it's beyond them. Most will never get prosecuted

Odd thread that seems to want to declare someone guilty without even a trial. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@lost.parrot wrote:

or he's faced with trying to defend the indefensible.

They don't.It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.A such the system is weighted in favor of the defendant

May come as a surprise, but most similar crimes rarely have an audience, and often it's not that an act took place, but that consent was given
What should the legal system do, declare it's beyond them. Most will never get prosecuted

Odd thread that seems to want to declare someone guilty without even a trial. 

---

Glad to see someone else recognises this

[cee-dee]

"...such the (sic) system is weighted in favor of the defendant"... Not so.

In such cases the system is weighted against the defendant because he's had the right to face and question his accuser(s) removed, the accusers are allowed to remain anonymous and he alone has to face the full glare of commital hearings and trial not only by the legal process but also by the press and TV news.

It's gradually moving to a point where you'll only need to be accused of something and the presumption will be that you're guilty leading towards.............. you'll have to prove you're innocent. If you succeed, forever after you'll be faced with "Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, no smoke without fire....."