Another prove your innocence case

[moanthebairns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290

Cleared of rape, found not guilty. Still shows up on and has to remain on enhanced criminal records check.

[andy_s]

moanthebairns said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290

Cleared of rape, found not guilty. Still shows up on and has to remain on enhanced criminal records check.

I'm not sure how they can reason, correctly in my view, that the information on official documents may be prejudicial to prospective employers yet unanimously find that it should nonetheless remain included. Very Kafkaesque.

[Gameface]

My heart sinks when this thread pops up in My Stuff, because I know I will be pissed off by what I'm about to read.

Today's bump didn't disappoint.

What utter bks. Found innocent but tarred for life.

[irocfan]

yup - I read this too and my initial thought was WTF?

[steveatesh]

moanthebairns said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290

Cleared of rape, found not guilty. Still shows up on and has to remain on enhanced criminal records check.

I wonder if the person who made the original complaint was investigated for false accusation? He is saying there was no sexual contact, so not an issue of consent, and was acquitted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that person is quietly getter no on with their lives happy in the knowledge that even without the conviction they have ruined this mans life.

[saaby93]

If youre found not guilty, why is it even on the polie reords so they can feel like issuing it?
Is the slate only wiped clean when youre found guilty and done the time?

From reading the link it may be that the judges hands were tied and theyd like politicians to review it and change the law

[Thorodin]

That's exactly it. The judges were considering if the law as it stands was adhered to. They found that it was and denied the appeal. In that they had no choice The law can of course be changed, but as ever, too late for some who are massively treated very badly. Of course, the law would have been overseen and adjudged correct by that house of virtue and superlative expertise, the Lords.

[anonymous-user]

steveatesh said:

I wonder if the person who made the original complaint was investigated for false accusation? He is saying there was no sexual contact, so not an issue of consent, and was acquitted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that person is quietly getter no on with their lives happy in the knowledge that even without the conviction they have ruined this mans life.

Alternatively the person who made the complaint could be walking around scared because the person who raped them was found not guilty and they are scared they could encounter them again.

Not guilty does not mean the act never happened, or that it happened the way the defendant said it did, or that the accusation was false. It means there was not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that covers a wide range of possible events from it happening exactly the way the defendant said it did-to exactly the way the accuser said it did-and everything in between!

[andy_s]

cookie118 said:

Alternatively the person who made the complaint could be walking around scared because the person who raped them was found not guilty and they are scared they could encounter them again.

Not guilty does not mean the act never happened, or that it happened the way the defendant said it did, or that the accusation was false. It means there was not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that covers a wide range of possible events from it happening exactly the way the defendant said it did-to exactly the way the accuser said it did-and everything in between!

Yes, but in law....

[Thorodin]

cookie118 said:

Alternatively the person who made the complaint could be walking around scared because the person who raped them was found not guilty and they are scared they could encounter them again.

Not guilty does not mean the act never happened, or that it happened the way the defendant said it did, or that the accusation was false. It means there was not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that covers a wide range of possible events from it happening exactly the way the defendant said it did-to exactly the way the accuser said it did-and everything in between!

Isn't that merely a case of 'not proven' as in Scotland?

[spaximus]

cookie118 said:

steveatesh said:

I wonder if the person who made the original complaint was investigated for false accusation? He is saying there was no sexual contact, so not an issue of consent, and was acquitted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that person is quietly getter no on with their lives happy in the knowledge that even without the conviction they have ruined this mans life.

Alternatively the person who made the complaint could be walking around scared because the person who raped them was found not guilty and they are scared they could encounter them again.

Not guilty does not mean the act never happened, or that it happened the way the defendant said it did, or that the accusation was false. It means there was not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that covers a wide range of possible events from it happening exactly the way the defendant said it did-to exactly the way the accuser said it did-and everything in between!

This is the problem with the way our system works. The last paragraph sums up what many think, to be accused of rape must mean somehow the guy was dodgy. The police and CPS were not convinced he was innocent and took it to court for the jury to decide, who found him not guilty! That should be enough for the system to be satisfied, but here we have a teacher who is out of work due to a case where he was found not guilty yet somehow tarnished, how can that be right?

There have been too many vexatious claims from women, who maintain anonymity where it has been proved, equally beyond doubt, that the offence was fabricated, yet the stigma for the man is there for life yet for the woman there is no come back in the majority of cases.

The law needs altering to reflect this somehow

[moanthebairns]

cookie118 said:

Alternatively the person who made the complaint could be walking around scared because the person who raped them was found not guilty and they are scared they could encounter them again.

Not guilty does not mean the act never happened, or that it happened the way the defendant said it did, or that the accusation was false. It means there was not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that covers a wide range of possible events from it happening exactly the way the defendant said it did-to exactly the way the accuser said it did-and everything in between!

Or like myself who was accused, case never went to trial I will have the same. Yet my accuser has been convicted of lying about a care worker sexually assaulting her kid.

The court wouldn't accept my not guilty plea even though they wished not to proceed with it, due to stats and having been seen accepting this would be a no, no.

I'm left in limbo. I'll have this on my police record for life. They could in theory re-open it for investigation at anytime, however I'd tear them a new arse hole if they did.

I've went self employed after loosing my job from this and tbh I don't want to ever be put in the mortifying situation of having a check done and this coming back.

The man is not guilty, his slate should be clean.

[Gameface]

Your ex has also falsely accused someone else?

Has she got a screw loose?

[steveatesh]

cookie118 said:

steveatesh said:

I wonder if the person who made the original complaint was investigated for false accusation? He is saying there was no sexual contact, so not an issue of consent, and was acquitted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that person is quietly getter no on with their lives happy in the knowledge that even without the conviction they have ruined this mans life.

Alternatively the person who made the complaint could be walking around scared because the person who raped them was found not guilty and they are scared they could encounter them again.

Not guilty does not mean the act never happened, or that it happened the way the defendant said it did, or that the accusation was false. It means there was not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that covers a wide range of possible events from it happening exactly the way the defendant said it did-to exactly the way the accuser said it did-and everything in between!

Thanks for that cookie, which is why I said investigated rather than charged. The investigation could be anything from a discussion about it to a full blown evidence gathering. On this occasion there is an allegation of rape, the accused has said no sexual contact took place, that’s quite a discrepancy and not the regular discussion or difference of opinion over consent.

For clarity I’m not saying she did make a false accusation, merely I wonder if she was investigated for it.

In any event he was found not guilty before the law, so in the eyes of the law he has done nothing wrong. Why on earth should he have to disclose it?

[moanthebairns]

Gameface said:

Your ex has also falsely accused someone else?

Has she got a screw loose?

Must be very easy to do when your totally desensitised from the concequences of your actions, treated like a victim, given support, believed all the way by the fuzz.

Next time you want to get back at someone it must appeal to those that are a bit thick, it's an easy route to destroy someone's life and a ultimate fk you way with impunity.

But I might be bitter.

[anonymous-user]

Just because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they don't present a risk.

There are plenty of people who have committed the crime they're accused of but they do not get convicted of it.

The enhanced DBS is a crude, catch-all way of encompassing such people.

I'm not sure about Scotland, but I'm sure there's an appeals route in England and Wales which adds a little more finesse to the process.

[Gameface]

moanthebairns said:

Gameface said:

Your ex has also falsely accused someone else?

Has she got a screw loose?

Must be very easy to do when your totally desensitised from the concequences of your actions, treated like a victim, given support, believed all the way by the fuzz.

Next time you want to get back at someone it must appeal to those that are a bit thick, it's an easy route to destroy someone's life and a ultimate fk you way with impunity.

But I might be bitter.

I'm bitter on your behalf! You suffered through no fault of your own.

What was she sentenced to for the false accusation against the carer?

[4x4Tyke]

andy_s said:

cookie118 said:

Alternatively the person who made the complaint could be walking around scared because the person who raped them was found not guilty and they are scared they could encounter them again.

Not guilty does not mean the act never happened, or that it happened the way the defendant said it did, or that the accusation was false. It means there was not enough evidence to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that covers a wide range of possible events from it happening exactly the way the defendant said it did-to exactly the way the accuser said it did-and everything in between!

Yes, but in law....

Whoosh parrot much, that is the law.

The burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is for a prison sentence, depriving the suspect of their freedom. When it comes to other questions/situations such as a getting jobs, votes or my custom, there is not need for that level of proof.

1) There is a ex-councillor in Hull, he's faced charges of child abuse three times, one dropped because his supporters harassment of the victim into suicide, two trials in separate cities, evidence of the previous allegations was suppressed and he was found not guilty, not innocent, not guilty. This same councillor is the one that ordered the destruction of the police intelligence on Ian Huntley previous grooming young girls.

2) In another case I'm familiar with; the suspect strangles his cousin to death during a bondage sex session, admitted it, claimed it was an accident, went to sleep with the body; his defence lawyer kept calling the victim 'only a brass', Hull slang for a prostitute but offered no evidence of such. Not that it should have made the slighted difference to the question at hand. After the trial, a history of past sexual violence was revealed that was withheld from the jury.

We need to start trusting the juries with all the evidence, both ways and stop pussy footing around with rapists and child molestors, just as much as those proven to be making up false allegations.

[Solocle]

All I can say is:
this is a fing disgrace and a perversion of key judicial principles in this country.

What recourse do you have? Maybe you could sue the accuser for damages. Lost job? Lost oppurtunities? Emotional distress? Maybe not ambulance chasers, but courtroom chasers?

[moanthebairns]

Gameface said:

moanthebairns said:

Gameface said:

Your ex has also falsely accused someone else?

Has she got a screw loose?

Must be very easy to do when your totally desensitised from the concequences of your actions, treated like a victim, given support, believed all the way by the fuzz.

Next time you want to get back at someone it must appeal to those that are a bit thick, it's an easy route to destroy someone's life and a ultimate fk you way with impunity.

But I might be bitter.

I'm bitter on your behalf! You suffered through no fault of your own.

What was she sentenced to for the false accusation against the carer?

160 hours community service.