David Walliams accused of sexual misconduct

[Carth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Makes you wonder why he took the injunction out...

When you look at the shit flying everywhere now his name is 'out' I can see why.

[damien c]

Originally Posted by Carth

When you look at the shit flying everywhere now his name is 'out' I can see why.

Exactly, and this is why I believe the names of people being accused should not be allowed to be published until it has been to court if it goes to court.


It doesn't matter if the person accused did it or not, the public will label them as guilty especially a man, and that will stick with their name forever.

Look at Depp, his life was ruined because of a false accusation, only now is he really starting to get his life back on track somewhat but he has still lost out, he is still by some called a rapist etc, meanwhile Heard basically got away with it, although it does seem no one wants to work with her anymore, but she has faced no real punishment for what she did, unlike Depp who was punished for no reason!

The average joe is not going to be able to defend themselves like Depp did.

There needs to be accountability on those as well that falsely accuse, if a rapist get's 10 years in prison then a false accuser should get 15-20 years, only when people (women mostly) learn they cannot falsely accuse someone and get away with it, will the false accusations stop.

If someone is convicted of rape, they should get a long time in prison a minimum of 25 years and if it's against a kid, they get a minimum of 50 years!

Crime needs to be punished, not just a slap on the wrist!

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i see the trial by media is in full swing

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Not just vague, some of the "allegations" are ridiculous.

He asked someone for a date.
He called a woman/girl/whatever georgeous

Seriously, if these are crimes I think we're all in trouble.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Carth

When you look at the shit flying everywhere now his name is 'out' I can see why.

Although ’the shit flying everywhere’ is a direct consequence of the legal action.

Imagine that his action had been upheld it would mean that his (alleged) accusers are forbidden to tell their story, forbidden to claim what they say had happened to them, forbidden to seek legal redress, forbidden to seek help.

You are saying that if you are rich and influential and have the right connections, then you can get away with anything and shut down any complaints.

No, just no, that is wrong. That can’t hold. If, If Walliams has done what has been alleged, and if there is sufficient evidence to merit a prosecution, then so be it.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jem

Although ’the shit flying everywhere’ is a direct consequence of the legal action.

Imagine that his action had been upheld it would mean that his (alleged) accusers are forbidden to tell their story, forbidden to claim what they say had happened to them, forbidden to seek legal redress, forbidden to seek help.

You are saying that if you are rich and influential and have the right connections, then you can get away with anything and shut down any complaints.

No, just no, that is wrong. That can’t hold. If, If Walliams has done what has been alleged, and if there is sufficient evidence to merit a prosecution, then so be it.

what's stopping them going to the police

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jem

Although ’the shit flying everywhere’ is a direct consequence of the legal action.

Imagine that his action had been upheld it would mean that his (alleged) accusers are forbidden to tell their story, forbidden to claim what they say had happened to them, forbidden to seek legal redress, forbidden to seek help.

You are saying that if you are rich and influential and have the right connections, then you can get away with anything and shut down any complaints.

No, just no, that is wrong. That can’t hold. If, If Walliams has done what has been alleged, and if there is sufficient evidence to merit a prosecution, then so be it.

And how interested is the media in Joe Bloggs down the road? That's the difference, not wealth, influence, or connections.
Why should stories about somebody's private life be splashed all over the media?
About time that "kiss and tell" stories were banned.

[jem]

Originally Posted by damien c

Exactly, and this is why I believe the names of people being accused should not be allowed to be published until it has been to court if it goes to court.


It doesn't matter if the person accused did it or not, the public will label them as guilty especially a man, and that will stick with their name forever.

Look at Depp, his life was ruined because of a false accusation, only now is he really starting to get his life back on track somewhat but he has still lost out, he is still by some called a rapist etc, meanwhile Heard basically got away with it, although it does seem no one wants to work with her anymore, but she has faced no real punishment for what she did, unlike Depp who was punished for no reason!

The average joe is not going to be able to defend themselves like Depp did.

There needs to be accountability on those as well that falsely accuse, if a rapist get's 10 years in prison then a false accuser should get 15-20 years, only when people (women mostly) learn they cannot falsely accuse someone and get away with it, will the false accusations stop.

If someone is convicted of rape, they should get a long time in prison a minimum of 25 years and if it's against a kid, they get a minimum of 50 years!

Crime needs to be punished, not just a slap on the wrist!

OK let’s take this piece by piece

'Look at Depp, his life was ruined because of a false accusation, only now is he really starting to get his life back on track somewhat but he has still lost out, he is still by some called a rapist etc, meanwhile Heard basically got away with it, although it does seem no one wants to work with her anymore, but she has faced no real punishment for what she did, unlike Depp who was punished for no reason!’

What punishment did Jonny Depp get? Not being employed, not getting movie contracts? But you say that Amber Heard is in a similar situation, so in what way did she get away with it and he didn’t?


“There needs to be accountability on those as well that falsely accuse, if a rapist get's 10 years in prison then a false accuser should get 15-20 years, only when people (women mostly) learn they cannot falsely accuse someone and get away with it, will the false accusations stop.”

No, there is accountability, some women have been convicted and imprisoned for making false claims. The problem is that rape and sexual assault is somewhat different to ‘other’ crimes. If I break in to your house and take stuff, or stab you in the street, or drive while absolutely pissed, then it’s obvious that I have committed a crime. It’s just a case of was it me who did it?

But I have sex with someone, in itself that act is perfectly legal, well unless it was nonconsensual, and therein is the problem. Can you prove it one way or another?

And lastly, hypothetically a female member of your family is, or claims to have been raped, and she is traumatised, but for various reasons her alleged attacker is acquitted. Does she go to prison for 15 years?

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

what's stopping them going to the police

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/br...128498.article

It emerged following the conviction and subsequent sentencing of Brand that he had secured an injunction in 2015 against an unrepresented woman who had accused him of assaulting her. According to documents published by lawyer and campaigner Dan Neidle, the woman was made subject to the lifelong injunction by the High Court without any substantive trial. She was also ordered to pay £50,000 to cover Brand’s costs following a summary judgment by Mr Justice Jay.

The injunction prevented the woman from disclosing ‘any information’ about the alleged assault to anyone except her legal advisers or medical professionals. The order, which was drafted by lawyers representing Brand and his then partner Jemima Goldsmith, did not allow the woman to tell the police about her allegations.

Meanwhile, following a lengthy legal case, the Guardian yesterday named author and comedian Walliams in connection with a series of allegations of sexual misconduct. Walliams denies all the allegations.

The report stated that Jenny Afia, a partner with defamation firm Schillings, had written to a woman then aged 19 who had talked with friends about an encounter with Walliams.

The letter stated: ‘You are at a significant risk of committing a serious civil offence should you disclose, to the press or any other third party, private information or purported private information concerning our client.’

If you are Joe/Jane Public, and the very rich person sets their very expensive lawyers on you, it gets a bit scary…