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

LollipopJimmy

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

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.

Still not misleading.

I agree, this woman is not a genuine case but it can take a lot to persuade a genuine victim to make a complaint as it is, adding another hurdle would only make matters worse. Again, just because you have an issue with my post doesn't make it misleading

polesheep

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Still not misleading.

I agree, this woman is not a genuine case but it can take a lot to persuade a genuine victim to make a complaint as it is, adding another hurdle would only make matters worse. Again, just because you have an issue with my post doesn't make it misleading

Is this your description of 'telling the truth'?

LollipopJimmy

polesheep wrote: »

Is this your description of 'telling the truth'?

No, what I am saying is genuine victims often have to be guided carefully through the process, often they will back out of making a complaint for numerous reasons, fear of not being believed is already a big reason.

LollipopJimmy

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

No, what I am saying is genuine victims often have to be guided carefully through the process, often they will back out of making a complaint for numerous reasons, fear of not being believed is already a big reason.

Genuine men who have false accusations levelled against them are also in fear of not being believed.

There are no safeguards for them, no media campaigns and no support.

It's a dual edged sword. The ibelieveher hashtag has emboldened many to speak publicly about horrific things that happened, but it also has more than likely provoked some spiteful ****ers to ruin someone's life without fear of retribution.

A serious flaw in the system if the party proven innocent is named, and the accuser gets to retreat anonymously to the shadows without repercussions. Why was Sil Fox dragged out in the media glare? I imagine they expected it to be an open and shut case, reality distorted by the hashtag nonsense. #letsautomaticallybelievehernomatterwhat

Name the woman, let her experience one iota of the humiliation Sil Fox has had to endure. I hope he receives a considerable payout for the damage done to his reputation.

EmmetSpiceland

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

No, what I am saying is genuine victims often have to be guided carefully through the process, often they will back out of making a complaint for numerous reasons, fear of not being believed is already a big reason.

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

Higgins5473

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

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.

In the same vein it could prevent false accusers from doing something like this and ruining someone’s reputation, livelihood, relationships and their entire lives in general.

If someone has been genuinely assaulted they should have no concerns about being exposed as malicious liars, they might not get justice but they will not have their lives publicly shamed as liars. Unless of course they are and there could potentially be evidence to show as much. When you weigh it up, exposing this person seems right and fair.

What’s really awful about this story is this mans age, he will most likely spend the rest of his days dealing with a lengthy legal battle if he proceeds, not to mention the cloud hanging over his reputation which will cause a lot of further mental anguish. It really doesn’t matter that he was cleared or the case thrown out, once these type of accusations are made and out there in the ether; that’s that, you’re ruined.

Rodney Bathgate

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Still not misleading.

I agree, this woman is not a genuine case but it can take a lot to persuade a genuine victim to make a complaint as it is, adding another hurdle would only make matters worse. Again, just because you have an issue with my post doesn't make it misleading

Misleading: ‘giving the wrong idea or impression’

You are attempting to give the wrong idea or impression that this case is a typical case. You are attempting to give the wrong idea or impression that this case is the same as a he said / she said type case where there isn’t clear evidence that the alleged incident did or didn’t happen.

banie01

McGaggs wrote: »

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

What would be more worrying would be if the DPP were aware that that the exculpatory evidence existed and still pressed ahead with the case.

That has happened in quite a few UK cases until a recent change in the discovery/disclosure process.

Whomever signed of on progressing this prosecution without actually undertaking a basic evidence review.
Is a moron, and deserving of the sack IMO.

It's a fairly basic run through of chain of events and any supporting evidence.

Judge gets paid, all the solicitors get paid even though I'm going to take a wild guess that the CCTV evidence was available pretty ****ing early on. But hey, let's press ahead and make some work for ourselves.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

Even with an open and shut case like this, you can be sure of a white knight to come barrelling in on his high horse.

Higgins5473

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

If none of us believe them and make those kind of remarks about abuse victims there must be thousands of posts calling the victims ‘liars’ or ‘telling lies’, or putting it down to ‘next day regret’. Use the quote function and pick out a few there, should be easy enough.

polesheep

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

There are lots of genuine victims... including Sil Fox.

Necro

Mod:

Emmet and Rodney, cut out the back and forth sniping. Any issues with where a thread are placed please report it. Any further of this back and forth and cards will be issued.

John Doe1

This is really shocking.

There are plenty more psychopath women out there who are going to use the whole #ibelieveher thing for their own nefarious ends.

This is why we should put our faith in the courts to get the correct verdict before accusing men of such deeds.

Varik

Perfectly happy if we never find out her name and she just get's anonymously convicted and thrown in prison ( iron mask to be safe).

But most accusers seem to never even attempt to contact the police, they just stick it up on social media. The mob rules the accused guilty and that's that. Even when there is a trial civil or otherwise the accused is still dragged through the mud even after winning. People shouting "not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent".

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A serious flaw in the system if the party proven innocent is named, and the accuser gets to retreat anonymously to the shadows without repercussions. Why was Sil Fox dragged out in the media glare? I imagine they expected it to be an open and shut case, reality distorted by the hashtag nonsense. #letsautomaticallybelievehernomatterwhat

Name the woman, let her experience one iota of the humiliation Sil Fox has had to endure. I hope he receives a considerable payout for the damage done to his reputation.

Not often I agree with you but plus 100 to that.

ollkiller

No way should she be named. If she was named and with the obligatory trashing on social media it will only stop real victims coming forward. Of course I would agree with the defendant not being named until proven guilty. That's where the problem lies.

mikhail

ollkiller wrote: »

No way should she be named. If she was named and with the obligatory trashing on social media it will only stop real victims coming forward. Of course I would agree with the defendant not being named until proven guilty. That's where the problem lies.

And what does it do to men to see that their reputation and livelihood can be damaged without consequence at any moment by some lunatic? How many of the young men who get sucked into incel culture are encouraged on that path by stories like these? The notion that there's only harm in one direction here is utter bull****.

jrosen

I dont think anyone should be named until the case is over with.

I do think where someone has made a false allegation they should face charges.

ThunbergsAreGo

jrosen wrote: »

I dont think anyone should be named until the case is over with.

I do think where someone has made a false allegation they should face charges.

There are unproven and there is false. If there is video evidence and its clearly based on lies I totally agree.

Don't see the need to name them even, just sentencing and compensation.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

He should have a good case, right?

Higgins5473

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

He should have a good case, right?

I assume so, particularly if the video evidence is not new and the Gardaí investigating and the DPP had it in their possession whilst putting a case together. He’s come straight out issuing a statement about what he intends to do so that would be with legal advice. I’d say he’ll get a settlement without an apology after a drawn out period.

I can’t see why he couldn’t take a civil case against the accuser, defamation of character, personal injury etc. Doubt he’d see a penny of it though, somebody capable of doing something like that is not likely to have very much so most likely not worth his while and would only end up costing him more legal fees.

This isn’t a case of him just getting off not guilty for lack of sufficient evidence and the likes. It’s a clear cut case of him being proven to be totally innocent where his accuser lied and there is video evidence to say as much.

James Brown

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.

Isn't the whole 'I believe her' thing more about making sure accusers are heard rather than doing away with a trial? Making sure they are believed enough that the accused is questioned or charged?

The woman in this case should be sued.

Itssoeasy

I don't know why anyone involved in cases with such serious allegations are named at all. IF a guilty verdict is reached then fair enough but especially in these cases nobody should be mentioned. Why was sil fox mentioned at all ? I just can't understand the logic if there is any to why both parties can stay anonymous.

Higgins5473

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I don't know why anyone involved in cases with such serious allegations are named at all. IF a guilty verdict is reached then fair enough but especially in these cases nobody should be mentioned. Why was sil fox mentioned at all ? I just can't understand the logic if there is any to why both parties can stay anonymous.

Flawed legal system where lesser sexual offences like the groping offence he was accused of don’t provide protection for the accused. Rape and sodomy etc do, go figure.

NIMAN

Mud sticks.

There will always be a certain number of people who assume people who are proven innocent/not guilty in court are still rapists/pervs/fiddlers etc.

Their reputation is tarnished for good. Look at the rugby guys as an example. Had to p1ss off to another country cos no-one wanted to play them here.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

Isn't the whole 'I believe her' thing more about making sure accusers are heard rather than doing away with a trial? Making sure they are believed enough that the accused is questioned or charged?

The woman in this case should be sued.

She should be imprisoned.

JP Liz V1

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

He should have a good case, right?

Against his accuser and/or DPP? It could take a lengthy process and expense but he deserves some compensation

I do think she should be prosecuted

fritzelly

IF he takes a civil suit against her (wouldn't blame him) would her anonymity be forfeited?

As for the case against the DPP - go ahead, should never have taken the case to court in the first place. Not sure what they were thinking unless she knows someone...or was someone in the DPP thinking all men are evil so the story must be true? Need some investigation in to why this was taken to court - something doesn't add up