Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sil Fox cleared (Very clear video evidence of lies of accuser)

Options
  • 24-06-2020 8:39am
    #1
    whomitconcerns
    Registered Users Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭


    Now that he has been clearerd and the accuser shown to have been 100% lying, cctv video clearly showing his hand no where near her. why does she get to remain anonymous and does someone like that get charged? The judge specifically rejected his legal teams claims to his right to privacy

    Hes an 85 year old man, who (whether you think hes funny or not) had his life upended by her for whatever purpose she had in mind, and she gets to slink away?? Or have I missed something?

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/comedian-sil-fox-set-to-sue-state-over-sex-assault-case-dismissal-39311141.html


«134567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    Seems ridiculous that she gets away with a false allegation and remains anonymous. She should be prosecuted for wasting police time, making a false accusation and perjury as she clearly lied and her anonymity should be removed.


  • Options
    #3
    Lemsiper
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Lemsiper


    No fücking way should she get off without repercussions.


  • Options
    #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Because it shines a light on, and makes **** of, the #ibelieveher position.

    It would be better for them for this incident to slip away with as little fuss as possible.


  • Options
    #5
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    #Ibelievesil #idonotbelieveher


  • Options
    #6
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    It would be refreshing if the usual talking heads from the various hashtag movements came out and condemned this in the strongest possible manner without any slant on it. Just say this is absolutely disgusting and leave it there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    whomitconcerns
    Registered Users Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭whomitconcerns


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because it shines a light on, and makes **** of, the #ibelieveher position.

    It would be better for them for this incident to slip away with as little fuss as possible.

    not sure if sarcastic or not but it is an interesting point, due to this womans lies, if its publicised it makes it harder for actual victims to be believed, potentially. BUT if its not then Sil Fox is always stuck with some stigma potentially....

    She has made it worse for both sides by doing what she has done.


  • Options
    #8
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 82,819 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    He should never have been named in the media unless a guilty verdict was reached, complete crooked system we have.


  • Options
    #9
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Name and sue her


  • Options
    #10
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,777 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    I've never heard of SIL Fox and no info on who he is from a quick Google, just reports of his intention to sue the state. Don't recall hearing of the case when it started either. Should he sue himself for Streisanding himself?


  • Options
    #11
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    McGaggs wrote: »
    I've never heard of SIL Fox and no info on who he is from a quick Google, just reports of his intention to sue the state. Don't recall hearing of the case when it started either. Should he sue himself for Streisanding himself?

    You may never have heard of him, but plenty of people have. And plenty of people heard or read media coverage of his being charged etc. If even one of those people didn’t hear that he was cleared then an injustice has been done.

    And then of course you have the idiots who will say there is no smoke without fire or argue that he wasn’t found to be innocent, he was just not found to be guilty.

    This should never have gotten to court and he should never have been named. The system is broken.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    whomitconcerns
    Registered Users Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭whomitconcerns


    McGaggs wrote: »
    I've never heard of SIL Fox and no info on who he is from a quick Google, just reports of his intention to sue the state. Don't recall hearing of the case when it started either. Should he sue himself for Streisanding himself?

    Hes a very well known for being a round the houses comedian in the 80s and 90s. Certainly if you werent around then you wouldnt have heard of him. He never made it BIG BIG but you'd see his name all over the country in local venues.


  • Options
    #13
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,777 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    You may never have heard of him, but plenty of people have. And plenty of people heard or read media coverage of his being charged etc. If even one of those people didn’t hear that he was cleared then an injustice has been done.

    And then of course you have the idiots who will say there is no smoke without fire or argue that he wasn’t found to be innocent, he was just not found to be guilty.

    This should never have gotten to court and he should never have been named. The system is broken.

    It's ridiculous that such simple evidence wasn't seen by the DPP. And if it was it's ridiculous that they went ahead.


  • Options
    #14
    LollipopJimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭LollipopJimmy


    I heard an interview with him a few weeks ago, I think it was Ivan Yates he was on with, anyway as soon as word of this casegot out initially Sil went from a fairly full booking diary to an empty one and it impacted greatly on his health and wellbeing.

    However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.


  • Options
    #15
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,484 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    The reason she's not named is to not act as a deterrent for genuine victims cunning forward. Not saying I agree with that, just making the point. And it's up to the ibeliever hashtag crowd to condemn her as well - she's screwing them over too.

    The inconsistentcy is that he was named - he should never have been named, THAT was the problem. No one should have been named while the investigation was ongoing

    And yes, she should absolutely face criminal charges.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #16
    Sky King
    Registered Users Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Sky King


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    The reason she's not named is to not act as a deterrent for genuine victims cunning forward. .

    How would clear evidence of a liar deter genuine victims?

    People should not be allowed to make claims without some form of repercussion if it is found out they are lying - if not then there is no incentive for unscrupulous people to refrain from chancing their arm and making a claim.


  • Options
    #17
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    LollipopJimmy wrote: »
    I heard an interview with him a few weeks ago, I think it was Ivan Yates he was on with, anyway as soon as word of this casegot out initially Sil went from a fairly full booking diary to an empty one and it impacted greatly on his health and wellbeing.

    However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.

    This is misleading. She lied. What she claimed happened never happened. It is not a case that the jury believed him over her. It never got to that point. The case was dismissed by the judge because the CCTV proved that what she claimed happened simply did not happen.

    This lady is not a ‘genuine person’, she was not ‘telling the truth’. There needs to be serious repercussions for false accusation cases like this.


  • Options
    #18
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    The reason she's not named is to not act as a deterrent for genuine victims coming forward.

    Not having that. There’s a genuine difference between being caught as proven liar and not having enough evidence to get a conviction.


  • Options
    #19
    corner of hells
    Registered Users Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    I'm aware of a woman who did that twice , was prosecuted and identified.
    Id imagine there is a possibility of the Gardai and DPP further down the road having a look again at that incident.


  • Options
    #20
    LollipopJimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭LollipopJimmy


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    This is misleading. She lied. What she claimed happened never happened. It is not a case that the jury believed him over her. It never got to that point. The case was dismissed by the judge because the CCTV proved that what she claimed happened simply did not happen.

    This lady is not a ‘genuine person’, she was not ‘telling the truth’. There needs to be serious repercussions for false accusation cases like this.

    What is misleading in my post?
    Omackeral wrote: »
    Not having that. There’s a genuine difference between being caught as proven liar and not having enough evidence to get a conviction.

    I agree with you however the public shaming of the accuser in this case could stop a genuine victim moving forward out of fear.


  • Options
    #21
    JPCN1
    Registered Users Posts: 896 ✭✭✭JPCN1


    The scales of Justice seem to be uneven here. Either you name both or you name neither.

    He is an extremely lucky man regarding the CCTV as the Judge said the Court was impressed by the complainant....

    He should certainly sue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    LollipopJimmy wrote: »
    I agree with you however the public shaming of the accuser in this case could stop a genuine victim moving forward out of fear.

    Unless they’ve purposely set them up, how could that be a problem? We’re dealing with evidential proof here. As I said, an accused person getting a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean the defendant was maliciously lying or even lying at all.

    Should only be the case were something is proven as a falsehood.


  • Options
    #23
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    Name and sue her


    I have not fallowed these cases apart from Belfast and we couldn't avoid that.
    What is stopping the accused person from naming the person that made a false complaint...


  • Options
    #24
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,504 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Surely the DPP has a lot of questions to answer here why did they let the case go-ahead.


  • Options
    #25
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    LollipopJimmy wrote: »
    What is misleading in my post?

    There wouldn’t and shouldn’t be a fear of being punished in the same way in the vast majority of cases because the accuser isn’t found to have lied in the vast majority of cases. In this case it was dismissed before going to the jury. This is an exceptional case, there is incontrovertible proof that she lied, she is not a ‘genuine person’, so the system should treat her differently as a result. As I said that should have no impact on the vast majority of legitimate accusations (regardless of the final outcome), so there should be no fear of this happening if the accuser is telling the truth.


  • Options
    #26
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,484 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Sky King wrote: »
    How would clear evidence of a liar deter genuine victims?

    People should not be allowed to make claims without some form of repercussion if it is found out they are lying - if not then there is no incentive for unscrupulous people to refrain from chancing their arm and making a claim.

    The fear that they might lose the case and then be treated as liars. In a clear case of lying such as this, yeah - name and shame - but only if it's clear. And only AFTER the case is finished.

    As I said: I'm not agreeing with it, just pointing out the logic.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #27
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    maestroamado wrote: »
    I have not fallowed these cases apart from Belfast and we couldn't avoid that.
    What is stopping the accused person from naming the person that made a false complaint...

    I assume he would be found in contempt of court and imprisoned?


  • Options
    #28
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    The accused should never be named until found guilty, anyone who makes a false claim should be charged.

    If I were Sil Fox and probably younger and a bit richer I'd take a personal civil action against this accuser.


  • Options
    #29
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 17,067 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    We need to stop identifying anybody in these cases until they are over.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #30
    LollipopJimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭LollipopJimmy


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    There wouldn’t and shouldn’t be a fear of being punished in the same way in the vast majority of cases because the accuser isn’t found to have lied in the vast majority of cases. In this case it was dismissed before going to the jury. This is an exceptional case, there is incontrovertible proof that she lied, she is not a ‘genuine person’, so the system should treat her differently as a result. As I said that should have no impact on the vast majority of legitimate accusations (regardless of the final outcome), so there should be no fear of this happening if the accuser is telling the truth.

    I am of the opinion that this could lead to fear among genuine cases, fear of not being believed is one of the big reasons why victims don't come forward.

    My opinion being different to yours does not make my post misleading btw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    LollipopJimmy wrote: »
    My opinion being different to yours does not make my post misleading btw

    I disagree. Here is your post (the part I have an issue with):

    “However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.”

    This would be accurate if she was a genuine person. We know she lied, so she is not a genuine person. No one is suggesting punishing in the vast majority of cases, because the vast majority of cases do not involve clear cut lying like this case does. This is an exceptional case so trying to downplay the lying aspect is misleading.


Advertisement