Kevin Webster [Is Not] A Peadophile

[peteyt]

Sadly, some people do cry rape when it's not true which makes it difficult for those who genuinely have been raped. There are a number of reasons why someone would lie about it: attention-seeking or attention-deflecting (looks like the former in this case), sympathy, jealousy, rejection etc. Despite that, I do think the police need to believe the victim rather than the defendant and let the jury decide because otherwise you get into some really horrible anti-victim terrority that someone who really was raped would find uncomfortable and they'd be placed under enormous pressure.

I have no problem with them favouring one over the other, although it should be equal. My big problem with any case like this is publicity. If neither has been proven innocent or guilty neither should be mentioned. If the court case was private then they wouldn't have had to announce anything unless he was proven guilty but by mentioning his name they have tarnished him and his reputation. The problem is the girl if lying will not have her name mentioned which makes the system look very backwards

[-:Undertaker:-]

My inkling was that he was innocent, but of course you never know - next up we'll hear about William Roache (Ken Barlow) and Rolf Harris.

I have to say that my inkling with both of them is that they are innocent too - and that is afterall the right way to consider them until they have been proven guilty.

[dbgtz]

Supporting a side? You can't really "support a side" in a court case. It's a matter of evidence and fact, not a petty debate.

In the eyes of the law, he did not commit those crimes and who am I to say otherwise? I was expressing disbelief that the girl in question could fabricate such a story and ruin someone's life the way she has. The was the judge acted and the things he said also led me to believe that the case was pretty much wrapped up, that he had done it, which is why I was shocked.

Seeing as he has cleared his name, that's why I said good for him. I'm just expressing scepticism after what details I read of the case led me to believe he would be charged with it almost definitely.

It's quite easy to support a side and you'd find in bigger cases people do choose sides. I'm not sure why you're essentially defending her when she flip flopped on her story often but OK.

Sadly, some people do cry rape when it's not true which makes it difficult for those who genuinely have been raped. There are a number of reasons why someone would lie about it: attention-seeking or attention-deflecting (looks like the former in this case), sympathy, jealousy, rejection etc. Despite that, I do think the police need to believe the victim rather than the defendant and let the jury decide because otherwise you get into some really horrible anti-victim terrority that someone who really was raped would find uncomfortable and they'd be placed under enormous pressure.

The police shouldn't side with either the defendant or victim, that's not their job.

[GommeInc]

My inkling was that he was innocent, but of course you never know - next up we'll hear about William Roache (Ken Barlow) and Rolf Harris.

I have to say that my inkling with both of them is that they are innocent too - and that is afterall the right way to consider them until they have been proven guilty.

Agreed. That said, I'm not too bothered if William Roache is found guilty to be honest :/ His beliefs are a bit... controversial. Saying rape victims deserve it because of what they must have done in a previous life is such an incredibly stupid idea. It's remove the point of victimisation and removes liability from the one committing the actions, and in some ways justifies that rapists are well within their right to have sex with anyone regardless of consent.