Sexual Abuse and Prominent People

[Rhiannon]

I well understand why the accused is named pre-trial and the accuser not, in cases of sexual assault because others who may have been abused by the accused will feel more confident to come forward. However, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm beginning to think it might be better for nobody's names to be made public until there is a trial or at least a pre-trial hearing, whatever it's called (arraignment in America).

I don't know how this can work when public figures have to stand down frisk public life until the facts are known. I don't feel comfortable with it, but don't know what the solution is.

[Rhiannon]

I agree it isn't easy, I'm torn but some of the stuff I've read today, by people not personally involved but sympathetic, makes me feel it can often muddle the issue & it might be better if they hadn't spoken. The court of public opinion has already found the alleged guilty before any evidence is presented.  It's often the same with other types of offences.

No, from what I've seen the court of public opinion writes off women who speak out as liars, gold diggers and the 'disappointed' in all except the most extreme cases.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree it isn't easy, I'm torn but some of the stuff I've read today, by people not personally involved but sympathetic, makes me feel it can often muddle the issue & it might be better if they hadn't spoken. The court of public opinion has already found the alleged guilty before any evidence is presented.  It's often the same with other types of offences.

Not sure how that addresses the question. I mean I don't disagree but that is true of all accusations. You need, I would suggest, a clear whistleblowers charter for sexual assualt because if the societal pressure is you put up with it from people in power then we as a society condone it. And it's blatantly true that we have so condoned it.

[Robbie]

Yes that is true - very true - brushed under the carpet because no-one wanted to face up to the fact that outwardly nice, ordinary people are capable of vile acts.

As for people being called liar I can imagine a child surrounded by adults, perhaps including parents, all telling him/her that she has made it up, imagined it, even that he is wicked!  The police used not to be very good at questioning children about abuse up until quite recent times.  Poor kids had no-one to trust, how lonely is that.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt that the police are yet that good at interviewing people about abuse. Note that isn't really a criticism of the police, just that it isn't clear how we think we, society, should discuss it so why should some poor police person be the utter genius

[Robbie]

You have a point but in the past they would shout, intimidate and put words into kids' mouths. Presumably they were a reflection of society who didn't want to believe. I think they are better now, more gentle, have specialist training.

[Rhiannon]

Not sure why we are just talking about kids.

[Rhiannon]

I doubt that the police are yet that good at interviewing people about abuse. Note that isn't really a criticism of the police, just that it isn't clear how we think we, society, should discuss it so why should some poor police person be the utter genius

It's not just police, it is solicitors, judges, social workers, teachers, doctors...

[Robbie]

It's not just about kids Rhiannon, I was thinking of children at the time of posting after Saville was mentioned. Adults can be equally intimidated.


"It's not just police, it is solicitors, judges, social workers, teachers, doctors..."
Yes indeed, the list is endless...prison officers, youth workers, carers - some parents...

[Nearly Sane]

You have a point but in the past they would shout, intimidate and put words into kids' mouths. Presumably they were a reflection of society who didn't want to believe. I think they are better now, more gentle, have specialist training.

It's less than 10 years since the start of the most recent Rochdale case, and only 5 since the last of those accusations , never mind what their MP may have done in 60s and 70s. Don't get me wrong, I hole things are better but when I encountered their approach, this century, less then 12 years ago, it was shocking. And again I don't blame them. Apparently either our recent defence secretary couldn't tell how you aren't sexually harassing someone till very recently or he could and didn't care.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not just police, it is solicitors, judges, social workers, teachers, doctors...

Absolutely agree.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

So why is it wrong for ‘the sisterhood’ to call Dunham our for prejudging it publicly?

The "sisterhood" called out Dunham for suggesting that a woman may not be telling the truth.

[floo]

The "sisterhood" called out Dunham for suggesting that a woman may not be telling the truth.

I might be wrong but from your posts you seem to be supporting the accused rather than the accusers?

[Harrowby Hall]

I might be wrong but from your posts you seem to be supporting the accused rather than the accusers?

Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?

is the 'sisterhood' prejudging? Or was Dunham?

[Rhiannon]

Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?

So when Dunham says she knew her friend was innocent and that the woman accusing him was lying before any court case she was doing what, exactly?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Yes, but you must remember that they concern accusations. They have not (yet) been supported by evidence or tested in court. The "sisterhood" is prejudging. Surely, the safest approach in such circumstances is to wait until the accusations are proved or disproved and to make interim conditional statements?

Spot on.

[Nearly Sane]

Spot on.

Except that is precisely what Dunham did not do originally.

[Rhiannon]

Spot on.

So Dunham saying that she knows this bloke is innocent before any court proceedings is...?

[floo]

I wonder if any of the guys on this forum have been accused of sexual harassment, wrongly or otherwise?

[Rhiannon]

You can bet most if not all the women here have been victims of it, and some of the men too.

[floo]

You can bet most if not all the women here have been victims of it, and some of the men too.

I have been a victim of it.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Except that is precisely what Dunham did not do originally.

I am not defending Dunham, I think we can all agree that it would have been best if she had just kept quiet. My point is that Dunham, having publicly stood by her friend, because of the grumblings of the "sisterhood" publicly changes her mind & implies that he is guilty of the allegations which have not yet been proven, just because he is a male against whom allegations have been made by a female.

[Robbie]

So when Dunham says she knew her friend was innocent and that the woman accusing him was lying before any court case she was doing what, exactly?

She was prejudging, I thought we went through all that yesterday. Then she did a complete about face (making an arse of herself). Better she had said nothing!

The point here is that no-one should prejudge. All the facts are not yet known & a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Lets leave it now for the law to sort out, that's their job.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not defending Dunham, I think we can all agree that it would have been best if she had just kept quiet. My point is that Dunham, having publicly stood by her friend, because of the grumblings of the "sisterhood" publicly changes her mind & implies that he is guilty of the allegations which have not yet been proven, just because he is a male against whom allegations have been made by a female.

Except you said that HH was spot on about the 'sisterhood' (whatever the fuck that is) prejudging when they were trying to get Dunham not to prejudge.