Duty to tell?

[Mill Wheel]

In the light of recent high profile celebrities and former politicians, I wondered if there is a duty to report suspicions others may have harboured in the past if there is no proof?

Also, the police are acting on the allegations made by individuals, whose names are revealed in the hope that other victims may come forward - but they DON'T reveal the names of those making allegations - and yet some may have information or suspicions that those individuals are not telling the truth.

Historic allegations have a huge difficulty in that time distorts the recollections of timings of events - when asked, many people could not remember the date the National Lottery started, so my view is the standard of evidence should be high enough to justify naming the alleged perpetrators.

Those who worked with ted Heath have expressed the view that his behaviour never gave cause for concern... and Harvey Proctor has challenged people to come forward with any proof of wrong doing on his part - but should we rely on people conscience, or should the police be contacting them anyway?

[TheBear]

Mill Wheel said:

In the light of recent high profile celebrities and former politicians, I wondered if there is a duty to report suspicions others may have harboured in the past if there is no proof?

Also, the police are acting on the allegations made by individuals, whose names are revealed in the hope that other victims may come forward - but they DON'T reveal the names of those making allegations - and yet some may have information or suspicions that those individuals are not telling the truth.

Historic allegations have a huge difficulty in that time distorts the recollections of timings of events - when asked, many people could not remember the date the National Lottery started, so my view is the standard of evidence should be high enough to justify naming the alleged perpetrators.

Those who worked with ted Heath have expressed the view that his behaviour never gave cause for concern... and Harvey Proctor has challenged people to come forward with any proof of wrong doing on his part - but should we rely on people conscience, or should the police be contacting them anyway?

Naming people who make allegations would probably stop pretty much all of them coming forward and offenders knowing it will be even easier to get away with it. It's hard enough for someone to talk to police about it in the first place even with anonymity. Most people who suffer are terrified that someone will find out, terrified that they will be blamed, terrified they won't be believed, terrified they will be viewed as some sort of freak. It often takes years for them to gain the courage to come forward and even tell their closest friend about it. Quite often their life has been wrecked for many years as they couldn't deal with what happened. They don't even know if the police will believe them if they do come forward.

If you have suspicions that the person is lying then what do you base it on? Gut feeling? Then keep it to yourself. If you have actual information/evidence that someone is lying then share it with the police.

Comparing remembering the start of the National Lottery with remembering a significant sexual abuse event is plainly ridiculous.

There are plenty of people who were always seen as alright at work and in their social lives but hid a horrible deeper secret that shocked everyone when they found out. You can't read anything into that and it bears no relevance what people thought of someone. People challenging others to "prove it" is nothing new either. It doesn't change what did or didn't happen.

I know you were accused of something similar in the past (which you have posted about on here) but it's become a terrible obsession for you and you need to find some way of moving forward because the internet isn't going to give you closure or answers.

[Pete317]

TheBear said:

I know you were accused of something similar in the past (which you have posted about on here) but it's become a terrible obsession for you and you need to find some way of moving forward because the internet isn't going to give you closure or answers.

I hope I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that although victims of abuse should (rightly) be given all the help they can get to come to terms with the life-wrecking psychological harm they suffered, those who get wrongly accused of such abuse, and who as a result also suffer from life-wrecking psychological harm, besides possible career loss, loss of family, reputation etc, should simply stop being a baby and get on with it?

[9mm]

TheBear said:

Mill Wheel said:

In the light of recent high profile celebrities and former politicians, I wondered if there is a duty to report suspicions others may have harboured in the past if there is no proof?

Also, the police are acting on the allegations made by individuals, whose names are revealed in the hope that other victims may come forward - but they DON'T reveal the names of those making allegations - and yet some may have information or suspicions that those individuals are not telling the truth.

Historic allegations have a huge difficulty in that time distorts the recollections of timings of events - when asked, many people could not remember the date the National Lottery started, so my view is the standard of evidence should be high enough to justify naming the alleged perpetrators.

Those who worked with ted Heath have expressed the view that his behaviour never gave cause for concern... and Harvey Proctor has challenged people to come forward with any proof of wrong doing on his part - but should we rely on people conscience, or should the police be contacting them anyway?

Naming people who make allegations would probably stop pretty much all of them coming forward and offenders knowing it will be even easier to get away with it. It's hard enough for someone to talk to police about it in the first place even with anonymity. Most people who suffer are terrified that someone will find out, terrified that they will be blamed, terrified they won't be believed, terrified they will be viewed as some sort of freak. It often takes years for them to gain the courage to come forward and even tell their closest friend about it. Quite often their life has been wrecked for many years as they couldn't deal with what happened. They don't even know if the police will believe them if they do come forward.

If you have suspicions that the person is lying then what do you base it on? Gut feeling? Then keep it to yourself. If you have actual information/evidence that someone is lying then share it with the police.

Comparing remembering the start of the National Lottery with remembering a significant sexual abuse event is plainly ridiculous.

There are plenty of people who were always seen as alright at work and in their social lives but hid a horrible deeper secret that shocked everyone when they found out. You can't read anything into that and it bears no relevance what people thought of someone. People challenging others to "prove it" is nothing new either. It doesn't change what did or didn't happen.

I know you were accused of something similar in the past (which you have posted about on here) but it's become a terrible obsession for you and you need to find some way of moving forward because the internet isn't going to give you closure or answers.

How exactly does someone move on in a climate of 'no smoke without fire' and when it seems that the default position is that accusers are believed?

[TheBear]

Pete317 said:

TheBear said:

I know you were accused of something similar in the past (which you have posted about on here) but it's become a terrible obsession for you and you need to find some way of moving forward because the internet isn't going to give you closure or answers.

I hope I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that although victims of abuse should (rightly) be given all the help they can get to come to terms with the life-wrecking psychological harm they suffered, those who get wrongly accused of such abuse, and who as a result also suffer from life-wrecking psychological harm, besides possible career loss, loss of family, reputation etc, should simply stop being a baby and get on with it?

No, I wasn't suggesting that at all and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I was telling him that he should find some way of dealing with what happened, whether through counselling or whatever means. However, he is not going to find any answers posting here. He might get a bunch of people agreeing with him, he might not. How is he going to come to terms with it by asking these questions.

I am also firmly in favour of anonymity for the accused as well unless convicted. I understand why the police seek further victims regarding named suspects but I think it is flawed.

[TooMany2cvs]

TheBear said:

I am also firmly in favour of anonymity for the accused as well unless convicted.

If that was in place, then Savile's reputation would be untouched.

Even ignoring the various other offences and offenders that have been uncovered, prosecuted and convicted as a direct result, think about what else would have remained unhidden. If the truth about Savile hadn't come out publicly, then the systematic failures that allowed him to get away with so much would have gone unquestioned. If those failures went unquestioned, it'd be far easier for somebody to do the same again.

[TheBear]

TooMany2cvs said:

TheBear said:

I am also firmly in favour of anonymity for the accused as well unless convicted.

If that was in place, then Savile's reputation would be untouched.

Even ignoring the various other offences and offenders that have been uncovered, prosecuted and convicted as a direct result, think about what else would have remained unhidden. If the truth about Savile hadn't come out publicly, then the systematic failures that allowed him to get away with so much would have gone unquestioned. If those failures went unquestioned, it'd be far easier for somebody to do the same again.

He didn't have anonymity when alive and nothing was done about it. Why did it have to be that he died for something to happen? There are far more worrying flaws with the Savile incidents that if done correctly would make the issue of anonymity irrelevant for a serial offender, and then if done correctly the others would have followed as people would have had confidence in the police to go to them.

If Savile had been done correctly then we would have known all about him way before he died, even with anonymity unless proven guilty.

[Mill Wheel]

TheBear said:

Comparing remembering the start of the National Lottery with remembering a significant sexual abuse event is plainly ridiculous.

And yet the police expect those falsely accused to recall where they were, and who with, to form the basis of their defence - but as you point out if they ARE innocent, expecting them to remember something they had no reason to recall is ridiculous - but the police don't accept this state of affairs.
THAT leaves questioning the validity of the allegations and the accusers motives as their only defence... and yet they are denied the opportunity to publicise their accusers identity to see if somebody with evidence of falsehood comes forward!

In Harvey Proctor's case, I believe the allegation is from just ONE person, and is that not just the accuser, but many others were seen being abused, and by multiple famous abusers - and yet so far, despite ALL the publicity, no other victims appear to have come forward.

This should prompt a look at the accusers allegations and motives, and the statement to the press from the investigating officer at the start, declaring the victims case had strong merit?

[vanordinaire]

Mill Wheel said:

and Harvey Proctor has challenged people to come forward with any proof of wrong doing on his part -

Harvey Proctor admitted to and was found guilty of having unlawful sex with someone who was (at that time) below the age of consent. I would say that pretty much is proof of wrong doing on his part.

[Psycho Warren]

The problem with the current witch hunt for celeb nonces is that with public opinion as it is, i question the ability of the accused to get a fair trial.

Some might argue that they are celebs so tough or the interests of justice demand the witch hunt so tough etc but regardless of who you are, the fundamentals of justice are innocent until proven guilty and a right to a fair trial.

I think the names of accused and victim should be withheld until conviction as false accusations do destroy lives. You try successfully applying for a job working with vulnerable people or children if youve got a accusation on your CRB, even if NFA'd or found not guilty. YOu dont stand a chance.

Also those found to be falsely making accusations need to be prosecuted in EVERY case and handed down heavy sentences to discourage them.

[TurricanII]

Mill Wheel said:

In the light of recent high profile celebrities and former politicians, I wondered if there is a duty to report suspicions others may have harboured in the past if there is no proof?

I thought that there is no duty to report a crime, even if you see a murder in front of you, unless there is a specific mention in law such as reporting a crash within 24h.

Suspicions can be based on hearsay down the pub or something mis-heard mis-remembered. I'd only be comfortable reporting facts that I know first hand. It would be nice if suspicions were reported en masse and, in my utopian dream world, this enabled the Police to pick out a common theme and focus their hunt for hard evidence accordingly.

[Mill Wheel]

vanordinaire said:

Mill Wheel said:

and Harvey Proctor has challenged people to come forward with any proof of wrong doing on his part -

Harvey Proctor admitted to and was found guilty of having unlawful sex with someone who was (at that time) below the age of consent. I would say that pretty much is proof of wrong doing on his part.

It was not unlawful sex he was charged with, it was gross indecency with two rent boys... which presumably they got paid for and cooperated in committing.

The recent allegations are that he forced himself upon a boy and raped then murdered two others!

Telegraph said:

Harvey Proctor said the claims - which include rape, torture and the murder of two young boys - would be "laughable" if they were not so serious, and called for the resignation of senior police officers who are investigating reports of child abuse by VIPs in the 1970s and 1980s.

He (Harvey Proctor) accuses the police of pre-judging his guilt.

Telegraph said:

He also called for Det Supt Kenny McDonald to resign or be sacked from his position as head of Operation Midland, having publicly declared Nick's evidence to be "credible and true" and that the unit should be wound up.

I saw video of that press conference and have to agree there was no ambiguity in DS McDonald's statement to the media!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

[Red Devil]

TheBear said:

TooMany2cvs said:

TheBear said:

I am also firmly in favour of anonymity for the accused as well unless convicted.

If that was in place, then Savile's reputation would be untouched.

Even ignoring the various other offences and offenders that have been uncovered, prosecuted and convicted as a direct result, think about what else would have remained unhidden. If the truth about Savile hadn't come out publicly, then the systematic failures that allowed him to get away with so much would have gone unquestioned. If those failures went unquestioned, it'd be far easier for somebody to do the same again.

He didn't have anonymity when alive and nothing was done about it. Why did it have to be that he died for something to happen? There are far more worrying flaws with the Savile incidents that if done correctly would make the issue of anonymity irrelevant for a serial offender, and then if done correctly the others would have followed as people would have had confidence in the police to go to them.

If Savile had been done correctly then we would have known all about him way before he died, even with anonymity unless proven guilty.

Given that Savile was regarded as one rung below Mother Theresa by the great and good including those in government and the Royal Family I think it is a fair assessment that 'correctly' was not going to be allowed to happen. If the dirty laundry had remained locked away he would probably have been canonised by now.

[Mill Wheel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241918/Po...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241970/Tr...

Ask yourself WHY a person would make allegations of such a serious crime, facing a potential court case, and detailed questioning of a very personal nature about an crime which has apparently caused them so much mental trauma?

I wonder how many man hours have been wasted on wild goose chases at the behest of individuals with dubious motives.
Not just the celebrity ones, but all the ex-wives or kooky girlfriends, or even random strangers who make false allegations for money or attention?
And how many lives have been turned up side down because of these individuals?
Not just the people they accuse, but the families and friends, even work acquaintances who either face questioning themselves as to the actions of the accused, or simply don't know what to make about their close friend or family member in the light of the allegations?

I don't have many answers except for one... STOP PAYING ALLEGED VICTIMS MONEY AS "COMPENSATION".
Money wont fix the pain or anguish of genuine victims, and only serves to encourage fraudsters to try their luck - in much the same way as crash for cash is encouraged by insurance payouts - with no requirement to prove the harm allegedly caused.

[anonymous-user]

Mill Wheel said:

And yet the police expect those falsely accused to recall where they were, and who with, to form the basis of their defence - but as you point out if they ARE innocent, expecting them to remember something they had no reason to recall is ridiculous - but the police don't accept this state of affairs.

That's not the police's job and they frankly don't have that expectation. They are there to gather information and evidence and present it to the CPS who decide whether or not there is a realistic prospect of conviction or not.

The Operation Yewtree prosecution and conviction rate is far higher than normal sexual offences. The juries are being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Corroboration is powerful. People who don't know one another describing the same Modus Operandi is powerful.

There are some people who lie and make false allegations, but it's exceptionally hard to measure this with any data. My experience is there aren't many who will, and even fewer who'll go through the reporting, medical exam, video interviews and the rest of the investigation and be able to lie to the degree it'll end up in court.

In terms of anonymity for the accused. It's a difficult balance overall but I'd fully support singular, up-to-date (as opposed to serial historic) people who are accused having their anonymity protected. For example, I know little about the footballer Adam Johnson's prosecution, but I fail to see how the benefits of him being named prior to the conviction outweigh the negatives if he is acquitted.

[photosnob]

La Liga said:

In terms of anonymity for the accused. It's a difficult balance overall but I'd fully support singular, up-to-date (as opposed to serial historic) people who are accused having their anonymity protected. For example, I know little about the footballer Adam Johnson's prosecution, but I fail to see how the benefits of him being named prior to the conviction outweigh the negatives if he is acquitted.

That would be incredibly difficult to implement. Why not just offer a blanket protection to all accused, UNLESS a judge decides otherwise. So for exceptional cases the police could go to court and explain their reasons for needing to publicise. If it was at the mags then it would be a rubber stamping exercise - but it would be a good step forward.

[anonymous-user]

The default position is victims of crimes are known as well as those who are accused of them. The foundation of our justice system is we are to be judged by our peers and justice is seen to be done.

Sexual offences have an exceptional stigma attached to them, even when people are found not guilty. It is an exceptional case where I would like there to be anonymity for the accused, just as there is the victims.

[Mill Wheel]

La Liga said:

That's not the police's job and they frankly don't have that expectation. They are there to gather information and evidence and present it to the CPS who decide whether or not there is a realistic prospect of conviction or not.

In 20 and 30 year old cases, where somebody makes an allegation, the accused's only defence is if they can provide credible evidence that they were elsewhere, or throw some sort of doubt on the accusers version of events.
From my experience I know how difficult that can be, and the affect that the investigation has on friends and family who along with the accused are kept in the dark as to the progress of the investigation.
I also found myself having to inform the investigating officer of the significance of some of the evidence, as the officer was not old enough to be aware... she did not know what a Ford Granada was, or why it's size was significant. It doesn't give you much confidence in the investigation!

If the news story linked to above is to be believed, Cliff Richard does not even know who his accuser is, yet he was very publicly exposed, with a news team invited along to film the search of his home.

In the case of Liam Britton and the Dolphin Square fiasco, Det Supt Kenny McDonald the head of Operation Midland, publicly declared "Nick's" evidence to be "credible and true".
All the evidence collected so far seems to indicate that McDonald is at best inept, and at worst, guilty of the worst kind of prejudgment in declaring this publicly before all the facts were known!

[LoonR1]

Mill Wheel said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241918/Po...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241970/Tr...

Ask yourself WHY a person would make allegations of such a serious crime, facing a potential court case, and detailed questioning of a very personal nature about an crime which has apparently caused them so much mental trauma?

I wonder how many man hours have been wasted on wild goose chases at the behest of individuals with dubious motives.
Not just the celebrity ones, but all the ex-wives or kooky girlfriends, or even random strangers who make false allegations for money or attention?
And how many lives have been turned up side down because of these individuals?
Not just the people they accuse, but the families and friends, even work acquaintances who either face questioning themselves as to the actions of the accused, or simply don't know what to make about their close friend or family member in the light of the allegations?

I don't have many answers except for one... STOP PAYING ALLEGED VICTIMS MONEY AS "COMPENSATION".
Money wont fix the pain or anguish of genuine victims, and only serves to encourage fraudsters to try their luck - in much the same way as crash for cash is encouraged by insurance payouts - with no requirement to prove the harm allegedly caused.

Paying money as compensation is a long established practice worldwide. On the cash for crash front , there is a burden of proving the injury to successfully make the claim. The fact that this is easy to do and is a civil matter makes it far easier to get that cash, than proving someone is guilty of a criminal offence. However, many people then pursue the matter through the civil courts and the burden of proof is significantly lower there.

I'm guessing your view is that the money makes the greedy come out of the woodwork and make false allegations, but your solution seems to be the proverbial sledgehammer and punishes genuine people far more than the chancers.

[paintman]

Mill Wheel said:

I don't have many answers except for one... STOP PAYING ALLEGED VICTIMS MONEY AS "COMPENSATION".
Money wont fix the pain or anguish of genuine victims, and only serves to encourage fraudsters to try their luck - in much the same way as crash for cash is encouraged by insurance payouts - with no requirement to prove the harm allegedly caused.

I'm with MW on this one. And outlaw the media paying for the stories.