Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1754898
Your fears are nothing compared to the many who have suffered at hands of powerful men over the years. Anonymity is a powerful force for good. Simply asking for it to be repealed diminishes the powerless even further. The motivations for these requests are murky.

Salmond has been cleared. It’s headline news. Job done.
kanga liked this
#1754903
JoeC wrote:Your fears are nothing compared to the many who have suffered at hands of powerful men over the years. Anonymity is a powerful force for good. Simply asking for it to be repealed diminishes the powerless even further. The motivations for these requests are murky.

Salmond has been cleared. It’s headline news. Job done.

Equally many have been falsely accused due to their position and have suffered long term persecution.

As I said earlier I don't think Salmond will see it as job done. Consider how he challenged the Scottish Govts handling of it, and won.

I do find myself wondering if the Procurator Fiscal considered the evidence insufficient for a reasonable chance of prosecution but felt pressured to press ahead due to how high profile it was. Had it been Joe Bloggs would they have thrown it out?

As I say, it's not Salmond as an individual that interests me.
flybymike liked this
#1754905
CloudHound wrote:He admitted having consensual sex on Government property.

I didn’t trust him before. I certainly don’t now.


If this was worded, "consensual sex at work", most people would just chuckle, some would smile and reminisce. I don't doubt that if we had an anonymous poll on here there would be a few admissions. The fact "work" happens to be "government" makes little difference, the important bit is it was consensual.

No, I don't like his politics.
#1754909
A predominately female jury of 8 females and 5 male jury members came to the verdict. The female judge has earned a lot of respect.
I respect their verdict.
The saga and probable restitution is certainly not over but there are more important "life and death" matters to deal with for the moment.
As an ex-pat Scot in the sunny South, with no democratic rights in the future of Scotland, I watch all these matters with fascination...
Thank God we have a jury system in this country, even if it is not our right, but just established and pragmatic "good practice".
#1754923
Miscellaneous wrote:Equally many have been falsely accused due to their position and have suffered long term persecution.


Very few allegations are based on falsehoods. When it happens that is tragic and those guilty of it need to be prosecuted.

However the narrative that it is a common issue is not true.

Read that it was in low single digits. Will see if I can find it again.

Edited to add:

This is not the very article I read some time ago but has some useful pointers:

http://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/fal ... l-violence
kanga liked this
#1754936
Miscellaneous wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:However the narrative that it is a common issue is not true.

Define common?


Define 'many'

Miscellaneous wrote:Equally many have been falsely accused due to their position and have suffered long term persecution.
#1754938
Ask any of the above named individuals and I'm sure you would get the answer one. :wink:

Personally I don't think it is acceptable to stick with the current system (which is excessively loaded in favour of the accuser in a nothing to lose sense) in high profile cases and consider the victims as collateral.

How many prosecutions has there been of those accusers?

I can think of a couple whereby the police were found wanting, which I believe was due media pressure in high profile cases?
flybymike liked this
#1754978
Personally, I think the anonymity of the accused should be maintained until convicted. Cases like this cause huge damage to reputations, but not only to the accused but often their associates and families as well.

I also think there should be time limits on the age of the alleged offence. For an accused to have to explain their whereabouts from 10 or 20 years ago is unreasonable. If an offence is reportable, it is reportable at the time.
#1754994
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Any miscarriage or non-delivery of justice is a tragedy.

That goes without saying Frank, but it does not address the imbalance. IMO it's insufficient to shrug our collective shoulders with statements of fact whilst continuing to subject the innocent to the injustice. Being innocent until proven guilty is becoming more difficult as a consequence of media developments. Even when proven innocent the media influence on the accused's life does not simply evaporate.

@Sooty25's suggestions would redress the balance somewhat. From the handling of a number of the high profile cases I don't think the argument of encouraging others to come forward is sufficient justification. A successful prosecution does not prevent subsequent prosecutions. Whereas naming the accused in high profile cases has been proven to encourage non substantiated claims with temptation for inappropriate collaboration between accusers and are more importantly inappropriate behaviour in the media resulting in pressure on the police resulting in them seriously failing in their duties.

Take this thread alone, even after Salmond has been cleared on all charges posters attacking him for his character, politics…

Are there grounds for prosecutions for perjury and perverting the course of justice.?

No idea in this case, however it very, very rarely happens even when blatant lies have been told. Proving someone has intentionally lied is extremely difficult.
#1755013
I am all for a more cautious approach when it comes to publicising names etc but on the other hand I suspect that Weinstien would not have been found guilty if it would have been a single woman making the same allegation.

And although justice needs to be done in the public eye, I think we can all agree that we can do without the media circus surrounding these cases; a particular bad example was the house search of Cliff Richard being live televised by the BBC; what were the police and the BBC thinking?

I know a lot of people think the jury system is great - I personally think it is awful and partially to blame for the miscarriages and unsafe convictions we not infrequently have.

Having 12 lay people decide on whether someone is guilty or not may have been a reasonable approach in the distant past, but what do you and I know about drug trafficking or fraud?

We would not let our noddle be operated upon by '12 men and women good and true' now would we?

So why rely on them for such important matters?
Nick liked this