The new 'McCarthyism'

Logically, recollections become hazy, places, specific events and time frames become harder to prove , identifying and locating witnesses equally so. Physical forensic evidence as with all historical sexual assault cases is not available so those other points have to be more robust surely?

I acknowledge I should have choses my words more carefully. I implied ALL failed cases are damning which I should not have done. That said some have been thrown out as totally fabricated and spurious.

 

That doesn't mean that the burden of proof should be higher though does it? It simply means that it's harder to meet the required burden of proof

 

56 YEARS AGO, its a different world

 

New ‘McCarthyism’?? That’s the last thing it is.
Putting aside my love of Bob Dylan. This is a private, civil matter & should be conducted as such. That shouldn’t prevent a victim coming forward, if they feel there’s justice to be served.

 

The BBC report starts "Bob Dylan denies........." I don't see how that is trying and convicting him?

 

To give other victims chance to come forward ,as most cases were one victim until In the public eye .

 

err one 'alleged victim' . That in itself is a problem. Each case m,ust be judged independently. You cannot reference previous or current allegations or convictions during a trial and yet a jury may be exposed to the media frenzy if multiple allegations suddenly surface. Whilst a judge will stress that the jurors must disregard everything outside the court room and decide solely on evidence presented, the publicity surrounding a celebrity trial is almost guaranteed to have some influence on a jury.

 

They have always had the chance to come forward though but close not to for a variety of reasons.
Remember that whilst it encourages genuine allegations against the alleged perpetrator it also encourages fake allegations too

 

Fake allegations are mostly weeded out and it’s unlikely say in the Weinstein allegations that they are all making it up .
Hundreds didn’t come forward in the JS case till it became public and people felt it was safe to do so and were being listened to instead of their stories being dismissed by the police who were being bought by Savilles charm and contacts .

 

Aw diddums!! You make stupid naive statement and then get criticised for it. OI am sure Mansfield Red is more than capable of standing up for himself in any case. 'If you can't stand the heat ...'and all that... This is an emotive subject and pèeople have strong views. I have, over the years been called racist, little Englander, xenophobic, sad lonely old man...none of which is true and sometimes I do overstep the mark but we all move on. If you take umbrage at being called naive then there is little point in debating with you either so bye! There is plenty of patronising and belittling on this BB from plenty of others .

 

The ‘New McCarthyism’ implies a witch-hunt against a section of the community. In his case it was anyone to the left of the Republican Party, which is just about anyone other than republicans (shades of thatcher there).
It poses the question of when does a search for justice become a witch hunt? If the dramatic j’accuse part this thread carries the implication that the rich and famous are being persecuted because they are rich and famous then, if it were true, the thread would have a point. If it’s being asserted that the rich and famous were being persecuted because they are sex offenders it carries more doubt.
The royal family are presented as the embodiment of the nation and an example to us all. This is a major and unrealistic position that nobody can live up to. It carries its privileges and there is a price to be paid. The price is being in the public eye and actions being judged.
The real thrust of the thread is that females and in some cases males who may have been abused are receiving an unfair bias in the courts. This on top of centuries where the rich and famous has benefited from such bias.
Public opinion will fluctuate and wouldn’t generalise to say the woman is looking for a pay day because she’s American. Maybe she’s looking for a pay day because she feels she’s been abused by a rich and powerful man?

 

Fair enough, but I wonder whether you would be calling for a higher burden of proof if say tomorrow your daughter finally plucked up the courage, sat you down and said uncle so and so abused her as a child thirty odd years ago?

I suspect you wouldn't be.

 

While I disagree with his higher burden of proof comment couldn't this be flipped the other way?
Would you be happy with your son labelled a rapist based on someone deciding that it was 50/50 but he might have done it because she provided evidence that they met each other at a party 30 years ago and he couldn't prove that they didn't do anything?

For me it's a really tough one. I fully support criminal convictions regardless of time frame and find the American system utterly stupid but I have big issues with civil cases for criminal acts where lives can be ruined with a much lower burden of proof

 

It's a strange one isn't it. Victims receive an unfair bias in courts but alleged perpetrators receive an unfair bias in the media

 

Courts deliver justice the media delivers whatever it’s owner desires .

 

Of course it works both ways. I'm not sure the evidence you provided would tip it over the civil standard, though.

It is a very complex situation and in sexual abuse and rape cases the advantage is not with the victims but with the alleged perpetrators. The conviction rates are extremely low. I don't want to see anyone get set down for anything they haven't done but some reality is needed here.

 

I agree with you. The legal system is wrong, I just don't think that the civil and even media trials should go the other way to make up for that. What we need is justice in the first instance not some form of over the top form of justice to make up for it. I really wish I knew a way to ensure that victims get a fair crack at justice in court

 

Always think there should be tangible proof before proceeding, although in the case of Prince Andrew I'll make an exception, chuck any old dog **** at him, and make him squirm