Historic Sex Offences , A Rational View?

[EDDIE51]

I have just found this article and it seems to me to offer an explanation for the recent rise in the number of historic sex offences prosecuted.
http://insidetime.org/british-justice-21st-century-tear-start/
I would welcome others views .

[EDDIE51]

You need to read the whole thing to understand where it is coming from.
Sorry if it's a bit long.

[sandyRoe]

Was that written by a time serving prisoner? If so, what's he doing time for?

[Buenchico]

Doesn't the name at the foot of that article look familiar to you, Sandy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_King#2000.E2.80.932010

Like some others, I get concerned by the constant lowering of levels of proof that are required for convictions in such cases. I've been told by a 14yo girl (during my time as a teacher) that she was going to 'get me' by claiming (entirely falsely) that I'd sexually assaulted her. She was definitely 'disturbed' but also highly intelligent (so that, if she'd decided to go through with her threat, she might easily have put up a convincing performance). Further, there were suspicions that she was actually being abused by her father (so that she could have given a believable account of how my alleged abuse took place).

I was fortunate in that:
(a) she made her threat in front of others (and I immediately reported it to the head teacher) ; and
(b) I believed in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
These days I've got far less faith in (b) and I'm concerned that others, in a similar position, could now easily have their lives destroyed through false allegations.

[Peter Pedant]

.

DPP has told them to get on with it and made money available

I quite admired the parliamentary side stepping - tripping the light fantastic - over whether policemen whistle blowing on the latest cover up would be prosecuted under the official secrets act. No one would say "No of course not" - because saying Yes or NO was NOT a politicians job

Can I be the only one to think that the offer of immunity would be taken up by whistle blowers but also by would-be-whistle blowers who in fact wanted immunity because they were culpable ?

[Jackdaw33]

Without going into details, whilst out on a school field visit I refused a 13 year old boy to visit a sweetshop. He replied that if I did not let him he would tell the Head that I had touched him up.

I told him he was on a loser, because the head knew me, and knew that if I were to touch up a boy I would choose a pretty one and not an ugly little git like him. End of, as they say.

[woofgang]

The problem is that we just don't KNOW. What we do know is that there has been cover up and historically abusers have got away with abuse because of who they knew.
I would also suggest that the author is not neutral!

[Peter Pedant]

.

//I would also suggest that the author is not neutral!//

yeah but if Queen ANne Boleyn said: I have such a pretty neck and I really am against Capital Punishment

would we really all say: well she would say that wouldnt she ?
and take that as the end of the discussion

[tamborine]

Young Thelwells used to try their charms on my OH, in the hope of knocking me off my perch. I doubt the innocence of some accusers.

[EDDIE51]

No the author is not neutral , the article comes from 'InsideTimes' a newspaper for prisoners. But there are some worrying points, the lowering of the standard of proof and the CPS view of it's role with the emphasis on conviction.

[woofgang]

no Peter and I did not intend my comment to end the discussion.

[Peter Pedant]

// the lowering of the standard of proof and the CPS view of it's role with the emphasis on conviction.//

there has been some legal discussion about the lowering of the standard of proof with the lawyers taking the view that this is matter of law and so is not within the remit of the DPP -and so she can't do it whether or not she says she can or will

//CPS view of it's role with the emphasis on conviction//

I think to be honest that is what it is there for. They cant bring a case with a view to the defendant showing himself to be innocent

and they certainly arent inquisitory ( finding out what happened like a coroner's court ) o Goodness no ! hahahaha - oh the very thought - that's a good one.

Usual two stage test - much discussed on other threads.

So I taxed the DPP that if she was telling her minions to bring more cases so that they were now prosecuting 'the second divison' in terms of confidence of getting a conviction -
then the conviction rate is bound to go down
because you are now prosecuting the no-hopers

and neither her mandarins flunkeys or her good self could grasp this rather simple statistical conclusion.

[jno]

of course the CPS is looking for convictions - that's their job, isn't it? It's the jury's job to assess the evidence and decide what the truth is.

[EDDIE51]

One point of great concern is the statement..
The prosecution is often allowed to change the dates on an indictment if the defendant can prove it could not have happened on the dates alleged. But the defendant is not allowed time to find another alibi !! . If true how the *** can that be justice?
Also the comment that , Police ''assisting'' witnesses is common.

[woofgang]

if those statements are true EDDIE......

[EDDIE51]

Yes, if it is true. It would better if an example was given. The bit about police 'assisting' witnesses it something I have heard of in other situations. I am sure witnesses in some situations are encouraged to present their evidence in a particular way and the form of words to use is suggested. There is a very fine line between that and exaggeration or even falsification of evidence.