And next it's Alex Salmond

SirC we are at cross purposes again. I have not mentioned 'wrongful convictions' I am talking about deliberate acts as shown by that poor young man in Croydon. Do you think it fair that she got off scot free and his life was wrecked? I don't.

I reiterate that the statistics only relate to reported cases and that men are far less likely to report. I personally know of a case of a woman who hit a man and called the police to say he had hit her. This was not an isolated instance and the social worker saw through it. This never went to court so it is probably not in any statistics. Why are there now refuges for men if they are not needed?

We can be pretty sure that a man would not take court action if a woman put her hand on his knee or his bottom. If a woman tried to grope a man and he didn't want to be groped I doubt he would do more than push her away as we did in the 60s. Of course serious sexual assault is wrong at all times and in all cases but surely some of the things can be dealt with outside the court? Isn't public opinion able to help deal with it? I think public opinion means that builders no longer whistle at girls.

I don’t think men get a rough deal, no - you only have to look at the stats to see who’s getting the rough deal.

If you start naming those who make false allegations then you have to be absolutely certain that these allegations were false with intent to deceive as opposed to a not guilty or not proven verdict - because as I said, the number of cases that actually get to court are very low and the number of successful prosecutions is woeful. If you start naming and shaming every women with a not guilty/proven outcome to her case you would be naming the majority of women and you’d reduce even further the number of women reporting incidents. You would potentially be subjecting very vulnerable women to a defence lawyer who would tear them to pieces in an attempt to prove that intent to deceive - again that might put women off reporting their attack if they could potentially face a mauling in court. I recognise that for a small number of men that a wrongful conviction can have a devastating affect - it’s hugely difficult and complex area.

If you’re absolutely determined to protect the men accused then it would be better not to name either party until a guilty verdict has been reached - but again, that woeful number means that other women who might have been on the receiving end of similar from that man and who could be encouraged to come forward would be prevented from doing so because they would never see the name.

SirC I think you are misreading my intents. I do think that if a person has gone to court and been found to have made false accusations they should be named and charged with whatever is the appropriate charge. I don't care if it is male or female, I simply think they should be held responsible for wrecking someone else's life. I am not competing with you I am saying that men get a rough deal too. Don't you accept that?

What does your Alexa say when Salmond is mentioned Yehbutnobut?

It would appear so

Accused is found guilty

My Alexa responds every time he’s mentioned on the news.

There will always be cases where the person accused is found not guilty - but ‘whataboutery’ detracts from the fact that there are many hundreds of thousands of cases of sexual assault, violence and rape each year (and of course many more each year that go unreported). Whilst it’s wrong, of course, for anyone to falsely accuse anyone of the above it’s important to recognise that the number of cases of actual rape/sexual assault/sexual violence/sexual coercion/etc far outweigh the number of false allegations.

I would be very very wary of naming the accuser until the rates of conviction improve. At the moment there’s only a small percentage of cases where the accuser is found guilty - are you really saying we should name every woman whose case is thrown out? You’d be naming the majority of women if you did that.

SirChengin of course we shouldn't be distracted from that but we will never know how many false accusations there are. I have no idea how many 'wrongful convictions' there
are but that was not what I was talking about.

Until recently I read that the police had been instructed to believe complainants whatever the situation. Cressida Dick said that should be changed. I read on Sunday of a woman who posted a nude picture of herself on a false Facebook page attributed to her ex. She was found guilty. I simply point out that it works both ways and I think men are less likely to report it.

varian when the rule about not naming came in I think it was right because there was still a stigma about the person who had been attacked. I think that has now gone and we all have sympathy for the victim. I would think it is now time to name anyone who claim is proved to be untrue. At the moment there seems to be no deterrent to false claims.

I am not sure whether both accused and accuser in sexual assault and rape cases should be entitled to anonimity.

When the name of an accused man is in the public domain, quite often other victims come forward.

On the other hand it could be impossible for an innocent man to ever remove the stain on his reputation.

That’s right - but I wondered what statistic you were basing your belief upon. The number of cases of sexual abuse, assault and rape are staggeringly high compared to the number of wrongful convictions - we shouldn’t be detracted from that.

Jane does it matter whether they are rare or not? They matter, wrong is wrong. it isn't either or.

SirChenjin Sun 24-Nov-19 14:15:58 if that was to me I have already answered it. No I have no statistics and I doubt they exist, the same as there are not statistics about how many women abuse men. The only abuse statistics we have are those which are reported.

You’ve read about some allegations where the person accused were ultimately found to be not guilty but you said you think there’s an increase in wrongful allegations. I wonder if you have statistics to back that up?

Those are rare cases compared to the sheer number of women who have been abused over the years. Do we abandon all such cases in case a poor man was found to have been falsely accused? No. Let justice be done.

SirC because I have read about them. How can we know? I think that if someone has been found to have falsely put someone through all that trauma they should at the least be named. I don't know the name of the person who falsely accused Sir Cliff, I'm not even a fan but I do feel very sorry for him. I feel sorry for the young man in Croydon whose life was ruined by an ex-girlfriend who seems to have got away with it.

We have no idea what these women did Nonnie - but men who behave that way have to realise that their behaviour is illegal and may very well result in a court case. That is one of the consequences of such actions.

What makes you think there’s an increase in wrongful allegations?

The reason that many perpetrators don't get slapped down is because of the imbalance of power. It's difficult to intimidate someone who is in authority over you for whatever reason.

I agree that no man should do anything inappropriate but there will always be some. I think it would do them good to be slapped down in some way and then learn from the experience. The woman will feel good about what she has done and the courts will be saved the cost of dealing with it. No, I'm not talking about serious assault but a whistle or a knee touching is hardly something to store up and bring up years later. I used to find it quite satisfying but no one has tried it on for years!

MawB Sat 23-Nov-19 13:54:57 you are right but I think there is also an increase in wrongful allegations.

Thinking back I am sure I was 'sexually abused' when I was younger. Men 'tried it on' and got rebuffed, men 'helped' me through doors and touched me, men put their hand on my knee. Let's not forget all the manspreading on public transport.

Jane10 Sat 23-Nov-19 14:22:32 you are probably right but the CPS accepted there was a case against the young man in Croydon

He is such a boring person to pull his sex life apart. I can't get up any interest.

as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion

So I think my feeble wee joke about AS’s kilt probably comes under the heading of incidental to the discussion.

Just a wee extract

5 Discussion of public affairs.U.K

A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.

A very different situation though!
Unless Jane10, mcem, Marelli, Marydoll, Farnorth and all the other Scottish Grans are called for jury service of course......
PS out of interest does the Act Welbeck refers to, apply in Scotland or is there another version under Scottish Law?

Apparently one trial had to be halted, I think, because a juror was asking friends on social media what decision she should make!

At the risk of “dissing” our wonderful forum, is a future jury in Edinburgh going to be poring over what are in any case opinions on a Grannies’ chat site?
I am not aware that anybody has even stated any facts which might prejudice the fairness of the trial.
Perhaps Scottish Grans could give their opinion?