Kevin Webster gets off

[shu]

Blimey what levels of stress must he have been under . He has been found not guilty and therefore the woman must be a liar ? So she gets away with it , how can that be fair ?

For every Jimmy Saville i am sure that there are 'celebrities' normal members of the public that have to go thro shit like this .

I am sure you could all think of several household names who will be next !

[Rosie_titters]

and she remains anonymous, surely the time has come, for people to keep their anonymity until after the case, the poor blokes career and life has been tarnished and lays in tatters

Sadly mud sticks even though he has been found not guilty,

[Nos89]

When will the law change and start punishing lying women. As I have found out to my cost that if you are female you can commit perjury and pervert the cause of justice and get away scot free...equality??? When men can have equality in courts then women can have equal pay, until then they (women) have no argument.

[Bradywasking]

There is suppose to be balance in law..but where is the balance for a man who was named in public, assumed guilty, subject of 1,001 jokes, had his private life (alcoholism and unfaithfulness) exposed and his reputation in shatters.?
Where is the balance for a person who by extension of Le Vell's innocent verdict has now being proved to have lied and yet can protect her anonymity , protect her family and face life and career free from any association with a crime proven or unproven. ?
If the accused can be named so must the accuser if the accused is acquitted.

[Red Snapper]

There is suppose to be balance in law..but where is the balance for a man who was named in public, assumed guilty, subject of 1,001 jokes, had his private life (alcoholism and unfaithfulness) exposed and his reputation in shatters.?
Where is the balance for a person who by extension of Le Vell's innocent verdict has now being proved to have lied and yet can protect her anonymity , protect her family and face life and career free from any association with a crime proven or unproven. ?
If the accused can be named so must the accuser if the accused is acquitted.

Nail on head hit. Excelllent post.

[LDB]

There is suppose to be balance in law..but where is the balance for a man who was named in public, assumed guilty, subject of 1,001 jokes, had his private life (alcoholism and unfaithfulness) exposed and his reputation in shatters.?
Where is the balance for a person who by extension of Le Vell's innocent verdict has now being proved to have lied and yet can protect her anonymity , protect her family and face life and career free from any association with a crime proven or unproven. ?
If the accused can be named so must the accuser if the accused is acquitted.

I don't think the accuser ever needs to be named. The majority of these cases are not based on particularly solid evidence and more often then not come down to one person's word against another. In such circumstances there is always a significant chance the jury will be able to find reasonable doubt, even if the person is guilty (not that I'm saying kevin webster is guilty, I know nothing about the case). Now considering there is already a problem with a lack of rapes being reported to the police I don't see how it benefits anyone to say to these potential victims "you better win your case or you'll be outed as a liar".

Imo men accused of these crimes should get full anonymity until they're found guilty by a jury not the tabloids but I don't see who it benefits to out the accusers.

[Cockerill's chin]

I fully agree with LDB that the accuser's right to anonymity should always be protected. An acquittal doesn't always mean she/he was being untruthful, just that guilt couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. How many victims would never seek justice if there was the threat of public shame? How many offenders would go on to re-offend safe in this knowledge? Are some really advocating that young abused children should forever carry a label of malicious liar because reasonable doubt exists? One word against another is true for civil court where balance of probabilities exists but in the criminal court it is not that the accuser is not believed; it is that reasonable doubt still exists. Entirely different. It is not that Michael Turner's story was more believable just that the burden of proof was not met.

Also, bizarrely, some are introducing a gender agenda into this child abuse case. Child abuse victims are represented in both genders. There is no ideal here but a right to anonymity for the accused until guilt is proven seems justified due to the devastating effect of this type of accusation.

[Bradywasking]

There is suppose to be balance in law..but where is the balance for a man who was named in public, assumed guilty, subject of 1,001 jokes, had his private life (alcoholism and unfaithfulness) exposed and his reputation in shatters.?
Where is the balance for a person who by extension of Le Vell's innocent verdict has now being proved to have lied and yet can protect her anonymity , protect her family and face life and career free from any association with a crime proven or unproven. ?
If the accused can be named so must the accuser if the accused is acquitted.

I don't think the accuser ever needs to be named. The majority of these cases are not based on particularly solid evidence and more often then not come down to one person's word against another. In such circumstances there is always a significant chance the jury will be able to find reasonable doubt, even if the person is guilty (not that I'm saying kevin webster is guilty, I know nothing about the case). Now considering there is already a problem with a lack of rapes being reported to the police I don't see how it benefits anyone to say to these potential victims "you better win your case or you'll be outed as a liar".

Imo men accused of these crimes should get full anonymity until they're found guilty by a jury not the tabloids but I don't see who it benefits to out the accusers.

You are correct LDB in what you say, I accept that all accusers are not liars but maybe the burden of proof was too much for a conviction. What I should have said is that if it can be proven that false allegations were made for profit or attention then the accuser should be outed. A lot of analysts on TV News programmes are talking about a vendetta against celebrities and to a degree them being easy targets. That has to be balanced with a fear of reporting a crime because the perpetrator is deemed to be too powerful by the victim. It's a horrible situation,

[GranadaJoe]

A couple of points:

1) In English law, acquitted defendants are not found 'innocent', they are found not guilty.

2) In all cases the prosecution has to disclose all of their evidence to the defence. The defence can then prepare their case in the light of what they are told. Coupled with the burden of proof, this always gives the defence the advantage.

[DB10GOONER]

A mate of mine was assaulted by a night club bouncer years ago. He had done nothing wrong and was savagely assaulted by this psycho crunt. He made a statement to the police and also sued the night club. The bouncer was charged with assault. In the build up to the court case the police and the prosecuters kept saying to my mate that it was odds on the bouncer would get off as it was effectively down to his word against my mate's (as both had called witnesses) and that it had to be proven beyond a doubt etc, but not to worry too much about his private lawsuit as that was much easier to get a result in.

In the end the thick as pigshit bouncer and his 2 main witnesses (club manager and another bouncer) tripped themselves up with so many obvious lies and contradicting statements etc that the bouncer was convivted and got 2 years. The police were amazed. They were confident the geebag would get off...

In the end the club settled out of court with my mate. And in a lovely bit of "closure" it turned out the bouncer was mixed up with a particularly vicious Dublin drug gang and being a thick fuckpig he had crossed them in a seperate incident and gotten himself kneecapped 2 days after he got out of anal rape school - oops, sorry - prison. Which was nice.

[OneBardGooner]

Thing is no matter what happens now - Regardless of him being found innocent - because of the nature of the (alledged and proven innocent) crime He is tarnished for life, perhaps not in the eyes of his family, friends and colleagues (fellow actors etc) But because he was 'named' by the media - Who delight in passing judgement (by the way they slant their stories/reporting) before a person goes to trial.

which is why it should be Law that no identities or names be known until after the verdict is announced. That way if found innocent they can (eventually) get on with their lives, - accused and accuser. Though I can understand why some might want to accuser being named after the trial if the perpetrator is found not guilty, even so there is no easy way and definitely never a winner - even if justice is seen to be done.

I think the media have made such things so much more difficult for both parties, they either do a witch hunt on the accused or on the accuser, depending on which way the case goes, all those cock suckers are interested in is headlines and selling papers/tv time.

[OneBardGooner]

A mate of mine was assaulted by a night club bouncer years ago. He had done nothing wrong and was savagely assaulted by this psycho crunt. He made a statement to the police and also sued the night club. The bouncer was charged with assault. In the build up to the court case the police and the prosecuters kept saying to my mate that it was odds on the bouncer would get off as it was effectively down to his word against my mate's (as both had called witnesses) and that it had to be proven beyond a doubt etc, but not to worry too much about his private lawsuit as that was much easier to get a result in.

In the end the thick as pigshit bouncer and his 2 main witnesses (club manager and another bouncer) tripped themselves up with so many obvious lies and contradicting statements etc that the bouncer was convivted and got 2 years. The police were amazed. They were confident the geebag would get off...

In the end the club settled out of court with my mate. And in a lovely bit of "closure" it turned out the bouncer was mixed up with a particularly vicious Dublin drug gang and being a thick fuckpig he had crossed them in a seperate incident and gotten himself kneecapped 2 days after he got out of anal rape school - oops, sorry - prison. Which was nice.

Do bouncers have to have a licence i Ireland?...they do over here...at least that's what is meant happen...They need to be registered, and as far as I know are meant to attend some kind of course (in people management ) before they can be let loose on the public in what is always a volatile situation, ready to kick off..usually cos some twat can't handle their booze, or as you say in some cases the bouncer is a psycho and just enjoys kicking the crap out of people. I knew a bloke who was a bouncer he did martial arts etc and was well handy with muscles everywhere and played rugby etc, but a nicer bloke you couldn't wish to meet - he did the bouncing job to see himself through college.... mind you I think he was more of an exception, as often the bouncers I've witnessed on doors etc...are often on some kind of ego/power trip - who gets in who doesn't..and often they get to pull some pussy by just being present when the women are shytefaced.

[olgitgooner]

On the subject of bouncers.....there are good and bad. And the ones in between. I wouldn't like to do the job even if I was built like the proverbial brick shit house and had a black belt in every single martial art. It's a poxy job. And I don't know why people would choose to work unsociable hours. Dealing with drunken dickheads. In the pissing rain.

Back to subject.....there can be very few things worse than being accused of being a nonce. A distant relative of mine went through the same ordeal as Kevin Webster. He was walking the dog one day and saw a couple of kids trying to set the woods alight. He quite rightly gave them a good bollocking.

The next day he had a visit from the law saying that he had been sexually inappropriate with them. He was due to go to court. His name would have appeared in the local press. He would have been a marked man. No smoke without fire.Even I thought he might be guilty.

These two little shits were out for vengeance.

Luckily a police sergeant was related to one of the boys. He found out the truth. The matter never got to court.

The little shit accusers were not punished.

[Top Londoner]

I did jury service (two weeks) 20 years ago.

I was made jury foreman, being the gobbyest there.
Two feckin' sweater knitting grannies (I kid you not) determined a black bloke, guilty of drug trafficking charges even before the defence was put forward.
Found him not guilty, 10-2 majority. Turns out he had previous as long as your arm, but in this instance the filth tried to fit him up.

Moral of the story is.......................................yep,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you geddit.

I feel for any BLOKE that get's publicly named when he is accused of any heinous or sexual crime.
Anyone being found guilty on grounds of their ethnicity explains a lot, as to why we require committed and professonal jury service people.
Name a bloke for being accused, name the PERSON who accuses him.


SIMPLES.

[g88ner]

Name a bloke for being accused, name the PERSON who accuses him.

SIMPLES.

Simples? bollocks is it that simple.

We should be encouraging victims of rape and sexual assault to come forward and report these evil crimes - not give them another reason to hide it and let these pedophiles and rapists get off scot-free!

I find it disturbing that some people are actually advocating naming abuse victims even though many of these poor people have summoned great courage to report these crimes and face their abusers.

I can't even begin to imagine the mental and sometimes physical scars rape has on someone; especially children. It's sickening and as a society we should stand against these crimes - not help push them under the carpet by putting rules in the way aimed at deterring victims from coming forward.

Is it not bad enough that they've been the victim of abuse without having to then be publicly named (and possibly shamed) for having the audacity of coming forward and reporting it? - and even after the case... a conviction is rarely guaranteed at the best of times, never mind rape convictions. You can't tell an abuse victim that they'll be named and shamed if a conviction isn't successful that would surely put most victims off coming forward!

I think there's a much bigger argument for keeping the accused name private until after their day in court... but naming victims? Outrageous... and deeply troubling that people could ever think that's a good idea