Duck - I can't be bothered to C&P your post - we'll be here all day just reading the same thing over and over (which actually, on these threads, we seem to be anyway, going round and round in circles)

First point - surely you must be able to see that the level of assault has a bearing on the amount of trauma caused. In my case I have made it quite plain that it wasn't huge, I found that a well-placed rear-thrust elbow in the ribs or a high heel ground into a toe normally did the trick. Some sexual assaults are far worse and should not be made light of, which is what you appear to be suggesting. My point in mentioning it was simply to say that most women have experienced it to some degree at some point in their lives. And it is not acceptable.

Second point - I agree there have been cases of a woman making false accusations against a man, but in the case of DLT (and WR and others) there have been several. In DLT's case, 10 or more. Are you suggesting they were all lying?

Third - older women would have told us to "just ignore it love, etc". The same probably happened to them, and by saying that, they were simply compounding the problem. Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make there. I agree with you, they did, quite wrongly.

Four - Sometimes they were believed, sometimes not, - but you're right, it wasn't considered important. Which is wrong!

Five - A daughter will now "be expected to sleep with every man or boy she goes out with". Do you have evidence to support such a preposterous notion? Expected by whom - by the boy or man? Who on earth decreed that? Oh, don't tell me - a man would have.

Six - Another preposterous statement which I feel needs further elightenment. You appear to have a pretty low opinion of the female population in general, judging by some of your comments. I cannot imagine what circles you mix with, but I can assure you not all "girls" act in the way you suggest.

To actually return to the thread itself - possibly the public are tired of these cases coming forward, they find them irksome and think the victims are fabricating stories. They don't want to imagine that these men they admired could possibly be guilty of anything untoward - it's far easier to think the women are overreacting or making it up. They don't want to admit that it has been acceptable and normal for many men to behave in this manner. In other words, they simply wish women would shut up and not make a fuss.

The jury were out for three days - this suggests they were undecided. An hour's deliberation with the same verdict would have given a more confident decision about no wrong-doing on his part.

As has been said many, many times, a verdict of "not guilty" is not a finding of innocence. It means that, according to the rules of evidence and the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction, the jury did not believe the evidence was enough for a guilty verdict. Juries can make mistakes. A civil case might have a different outcome. "Innocent until proven guilty" relates to the process of the trial eg, the burden of proof being on the prosecution. It means the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused, the accused does not have to prove his innocence. It doesn't mean that everyone found "not guilty" is innocent.

In any event, we're entitled to reach our own conclusions. Otherwise all those campaigns for miscarriages of justice for innocent people who have been previously convicted would be utterly pointless.