Paul Gascoigne charged with sexual assault on Durham train

[Bill 13,717]

51 minutes ago, Briton said:

Why do you think it would not have come to court if the alleged victim could not 'enjoy' anonymity?

Is that one of those questions that only ever gets asked when you already know the answer but don't agree with it? The same as my previous sentence? ?

[Briton 314]

On 21/11/2018 at 08:34, Bill said:

Is that one of those questions that only ever gets asked when you already know the answer but don't agree with it? The same as my previous sentence? ?

I think I know the answer; you don't want her to 'enjoy' anonymity at this stage as the hassle she would face from the media/misogynists could likely lead to her deciding it's not worth it and to not press charges.  Am I right?

Edited November 22, 2018 by Briton

[Gaffer 1,665]

Both sides should be given the same courtesy.  In my opinion, neither side should be named.  This would protect the victims (whether that be the accuser or defendant) and prevent so much speculation around motives, as this just isn't helpful.

[Bill 13,717]

50 minutes ago, Briton said:

I think I know the answer; you don't want her to 'enjoy' anonymity at this stage as the hassle she would face from the media/misogynists could likely lead to her deciding it's not worth it and to not press charges.  Am I right?

No

[Briton 314]

6 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

Both sides should be given the same courtesy.  In my opinion, neither side should be named.  This would protect the victims (whether that be the accuser or defendant) and prevent so much speculation around motives, as this just isn't helpful.

That's reasonable but there are very good reasons why the victim's identity is protected in these cases.

 

15 minutes ago, Bill said:

No

So why are you sure this case would never have come to court if the complainant's identity were to be revealed? 

[Gaffer 1,665]

9 minutes ago, Briton said:

That's reasonable but there are very good reasons why the victim's identity is protected in these cases.

 

So why are you sure this case would never have come to court if the complainant's identity were to be revealed? 

I fully understand that, but is there a reason why the accused should be named?  I'm advocating that neither (which is what I said) should be named.  Also, your language infers a bias. At this stage, there is an accuser and a defendant.  We won't know who the 'victim' is until it's been tried in court.  There have been too many instances where the defendant turns out to be the victim.  Under those circumstances, the accuser should be severely punished because that's a disgrace when you consider what real victims of these crimes have had to endure.  And note that I am making no judgement whatsoever on this case because I don't know any facts about it.

 

[craig 5,199]

59 minutes ago, Briton said:

That's reasonable but there are very good reasons why the victim's identity is protected in these cases.

 

So why are you sure this case would never have come to court if the complainant's identity were to be revealed? 

Any chance you could bring yourself to saying "alleged victim" ?  Or are you another who has jumped to conclusion ?

 

She isn't a victim.... yet.  So why use terminology which suggests she is ?

[craig 5,199]

56 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I fully understand that, but is there a reason why the accused should be named?  I'm advocating that neither (which is what I said) should be named.  Also, your language infers a bias. At this stage, there is an accuser and a defendant.  We won't know who the 'victim' is until it's been tried in court.  There have been too many instances where the defendant turns out to be the victim.  Under those circumstances, the accuser should be severely punished because that's a disgrace when you consider what real victims of these crimes have had to endure.  And note that I am making no judgement whatsoever on this case because I don't know any facts about it.

 

Absolutely this.

 

False accusations (not suggesting this is the case here) actually deter real victims from coming out.  It ruin's reputations of the falsely accused - and yet it bears virtually no consequence to the accuser.

 

It is sad to see people jump to conclusions rather than accept there are two sides to every story and to let the case play out.  It is something I would expect Celtic fans to do when it is someone linked to Rangers as it is an easy target- I wouldn't expect it of our own fans though.  Indeed, if it were someone linked to Celtic I would also like to think we would have the same "lets not jump to conclusions" over a case (unless of course it was Neil Lennon - then he must be guilty, even if he is innocent )

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, Briton said:

That's reasonable but there are very good reasons why the victim's identity is protected in these cases.

What "victim" is that then? Or are you a victim in your world if you merely claim to be one? In my world you are a victim only if you are proven to be one in a court of law.

 

This also answers the last question you put to me.

[Briton 314]

On 22/11/2018 at 13:39, Bill said:

What "victim" is that then? Or are you a victim in your world if you merely claim to be one? In my world you are a victim only if you are proven to be one in a court of law.

 

This also answers the last question you put to me.

No it doesn't; it's avoiding the question with semantics.  What you say is nonsense in any case.  You can be a victim of a crime without there ever being a court case but let's call her the alleged victim to avoid any triggering. Could you answer the question; why would the women have been sure not to have made any complaint if she didn't have anonymity? 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Briton