Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 9:02:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Nov 19, 2017 10:13:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Nov 19, 2017 12:32:05 GMT
Yes, who would have thought Aled Jones. It must be awful for his family. I can't believe he's done anything bad though. He says himself he may have acted juvenile in the past. I just hope it's not another witch hunt. This is another reason people should not be named unless charged.
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Nov 20, 2017 12:55:35 GMT
They are not being named by the police or judiciary, they are being named by people making allegations against them and that is within the law, they are entitled to do that. It is then up to the person accused to either involve the police or the law to prove the accuser wrong. These are not normally criminal proceedings they are civil law for the most part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 13:34:36 GMT
They are not being named by the police or judiciary, they are being named by people making allegations against them and that is within the law, they are entitled to do that. It is then up to the person accused to either involve the police or the law to prove the accuser wrong. These are not normally criminal proceedings they are civil law for the most part. What happened to "innocent until proved guilty" If you are very rich you can seek an injunction to provide anonymity, why shouldn't that apply to every one?
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Nov 21, 2017 12:49:22 GMT
They are not being named by the police or judiciary, they are being named by people making allegations against them and that is within the law, they are entitled to do that. It is then up to the person accused to either involve the police or the law to prove the accuser wrong. These are not normally criminal proceedings they are civil law for the most part. What happened to "innocent until proved guilty" If you are very rich you can seek an injunction to provide anonymity, why shouldn't that apply to every one? Because the Tories took away your right to Legal Aid for slander and libel before then you always had the right to go to law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 14:48:00 GMT
What happened to "innocent until proved guilty" If you are very rich you can seek an injunction to provide anonymity, why shouldn't that apply to every one? Because the Tories took away your right to Legal Aid for slander and libel before then you always had the right to go to law. I meant that anonymity should apply to everyone in which case legal aid would not be needed
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Nov 21, 2017 19:14:58 GMT
Surely you've heard the saying "Mud sticks" or "There's no smoke without fire." Allegations can ruin a persons life and career.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 21:35:18 GMT
Surely you've heard the saying "Mud sticks" or "There's no smoke without fire." Allegations can ruin a persons life and career. That's the worst part about it all, in some cases allegations and rumours have lead to deaths
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Nov 22, 2017 12:01:22 GMT
In this country we have freedom of speech, this can work for good or ill but that is the way it is. You can say anything you like and if you do you can also face the consequences which can be criminal or civil. You can, as many of those with allegations against them, deny everything. In most cases however, people are not doing this, they are acknowledging behaviour that was not good in the past. They appear to know almost immediately what is being alleged and are quite capable of saying they are sorry and also giving an explanation (in their words) or what happened. If someone has made an allegation that is completely false they are entitled to go to the police and there are numerous laws that would tackle false allegations including ultimately prison for the person making the false allegation.
We can't just wish this away. We have to acknowledge that a small number of men/women, mostly with some degree of power, took advantage of their staff or situations to grope, grab, squeeze, molest and sexually assault a number of people. It was never acceptable to do this and the vast majority of people never did anything like this. But you can't close the door now, people are entitled to bring this up. Many of them did complain at the time, many of them did go through a process but many more were told they would be sacked or shunned if they said anything.
Let's hope that in 2018 we finally move on to working environments where this isn't acceptable and where HR Departments take this seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 12:29:37 GMT
In this country we have freedom of speech, this can work for good or ill but that is the way it is. You can say anything you like and if you do you can also face the consequences which can be criminal or civil. You can, as many of those with allegations against them, deny everything. In most cases however, people are not doing this, they are acknowledging behaviour that was not good in the past. They appear to know almost immediately what is being alleged and are quite capable of saying they are sorry and also giving an explanation (in their words) or what happened. If someone has made an allegation that is completely false they are entitled to go to the police and there are numerous laws that would tackle false allegations including ultimately prison for the person making the false allegation. We can't just wish this away. We have to acknowledge that a small number of men/women, mostly with some degree of power, took advantage of their staff or situations to grope, grab, squeeze, molest and sexually assault a number of people. It was never acceptable to do this and the vast majority of people never did anything like this. But you can't close the door now, people are entitled to bring this up. Many of them did complain at the time, many of them did go through a process but many more were told they would be sacked or shunned if they said anything. Let's hope that in 2018 we finally move on to working environments where this isn't acceptable and where HR Departments take this seriously. I don't see that many admitting that they did something wrong but there do seem to be plenty jumping on the bandwagon making all sort of wild claims, none yet substantiated I happen to think that the whole thing has been blown up out of all proportion, I mean the "horror" of a man putting his hand on a complainants knee - a journalist having to retire to her room because a MP offered her a drink or something trivial I remember a woman joining a care team who was entirely unsuitable. This team provided 24 hour care for a blind mentally handicapped adult and she paid him her first visit. She ran from the house because she knew he was going to rape her Consequently it was decided that workers should only visit in pairs, still on 24 hour care but the costs were so great that home care was no longer possible and he had to go into residential care where he was and is so unhappy he has become disruptive and is now permanently sedated The fuss over all this at the time was horrendous, imagine if that was today BTW I do wonder how many of these Holywood allegations are aimed at achieving publicity or attempts to kick start non existing careers
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Nov 22, 2017 13:47:34 GMT
AS a retired nurse I recall us having a lecture and being told we could no longer use the word love or dear when addressing a patient. Though through the years we'd had no complaints and it actually brought us nearer to the patient. Maybe, just maybe the Jimmy Saville thing got out of hand. Many claimants were reported to have received as much as £40.000 so that's quite a carrot to dangle in front of somone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 15:34:59 GMT
AS a retired nurse I recall us having a lecture and being told we could no longer use the word love or dear when addressing a patient. Though through the years we'd had no complaints and it actually brought us nearer to the patient. Maybe, just maybe the Jimmy Saville thing got out of hand. Many claimants were reported to have received as much as £40.000 so that's quite a carrot to dangle in front of somone. I didn't know that Saville's complainers were given cash compensation. That puts a completely different complexion on all these allegations It makes me laugh that all the interferers insist that people be addressed properly although it is much more friendly for a nurse etc to call you by your Christian name Anne Robinson apparently insists on being called "Mrs Robinson", and Ben Kingsley insists on "Sir Ben Kingsley". Perverse me would delight in saying "Hi Anne" or "Ben"
|
|