Kevin Webster Back On The Tools...

[HSS]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-24032449

[faraway saint]

Well, hope he can recover from this and this sends a signal out to any other poor victims who try to jump aboard the "claim" culture bandwagon.

PS Somner will be in tears.

Edited September 10, 2013 by faraway saint

[exiledfan]

Victim can't be named yet this man has been dragged through the gutters. I feel sorry for him all this should have been behind closed doors in a court not national news.

[saintnextlifetime]

Well, hope he can recover from this and this sends a signal out to any other poor victims who try to jump aboard the "claim" culture bandwagon.

PS Somner will be in tears.

It also illustrates that there can be smoke without fire , especially if the smoke is coming from a loony. .

[faraway saint]

It also illustrates that there can be smoke without fire , especially if the smoke is coming from a loony. .

Indeed.

If any of the recent glut of high profile allegations are proved to be correct then they deserve all they get but the sudden appearance of victims could be the a result of the UK following the USA in seeing a fast buck.

If these allegations prove to be wrong then the people who bring these charges should be charged with wasting police time at least.

Anyway, I like Kevin, he fixed my car once.

[gudmunder]

Looks like the future for Kevin Webster is f*ckin Rosie

[faraway saint]

Looks like the future for Kevin Webster is f*ckin Rosie

You're funny.

Bet you can't wait to be an adult?

[Hendo]

All today's accusation establishes is that the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

From my reading of the trial, what was not clear was any motive for the accuser to lie; vengeance or financial reward were not put forward as motives by the defence, all Le Vell argued was that "it was a lie that got out of hand".

However, in the eyes of the law he has been found not guilty. Sexual abuse cases, because of the lack of corroborative evidence, are notoriously difficult to get guilty convictions from.

What I found deeply disturbing though, before, during and after the trial, were all the people wishing him luck, or celebrating todays verdict. He was on trial for child abuse for feck's sake, not going for gold in the Olympics.

[faraway saint]

All today's accusation establishes is that the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

From my reading of the trial, what was not clear was any motive for the accuser to lie; vengeance or financial reward were not put forward as motives by the defence, all Le Vell argued was that "it was a lie that got out of hand".

However, in the eyes of the law he has been found not guilty. Sexual abuse cases, because of the lack of corroborative evidence, are notoriously difficult to get guilty convictions from.

What I found deeply disturbing though, before, during and after the trial, were all the people wishing him luck, or celebrating todays verdict. He was on trial for child abuse for feck's sake, not going for gold in the Olympics.

Great.

An innocent man , people wish him luck? FFS why not? If this was a member of your family or a friend wouldn't you?

You seem to be indicating he was guilty? Do you have some inside information as I'm not aware the case left any facts out of the defence/prosecution?

While I also agree that these type of cases are difficult to prove or disprove it certainly makes the case of the defendant very difficult.

Fact is he was accused, fact is he was found innocent.

The motives, I agree, are unclear.

What I find disturbing is that people who are accused are hung out to dry in public and the mud sticks even when they are found innocent.

Put yourself in the situation that some female from the past materialises and makes some accusations? The damage is can cause, even before the case comes to court, can be irreparable.

[zurich_allan]

I do have to say that in my opinion with cases like this, where it is often right that the complainer / alleged victim is afforded anonymity, that the same right should be given to the accused until AFTER the verdict. Very difficult to regulate as it would be a tricky borderline as to when anonymity ought or ought not be given to the accused, but I do think cases like this illustrate the problem where a legally innocent man's career could be over regardless of a jury finding in his favour. It's not an ideal system.

[Hendo]

Great.

An innocent man , people wish him luck? FFS why not? If this was a member of your family or a friend wouldn't you?

You seem to be indicating he was guilty? Do you have some inside information as I'm not aware the case left any facts out of the defence/prosecution?

While I also agree that these type of cases are difficult to prove or disprove it certainly makes the case of the defendant very difficult.

Fact is he was accused, fact is he was found innocent.

The motives, I agree, are unclear.

What I find disturbing is that people who are accused are hung out to dry in public and the mud sticks even when they are found innocent.

Put yourself in the situation that some female from the past materialises and makes some accusations? The damage is can cause, even before the case comes to court, can be irreparable.

My point is that prior to the trial, no-one knew he was innocent, so why wish him luck? By the same token, would you wish Peter Tobin luck before his trial, because he was "innocent" then too?

I don't have inside info, but from what was reported in court, the accuser appears to be someone very close to him, not some random female from the past.

Some of the comments that have been made on social media tonight are a disgrace, with calls for naming and shaming the accuser. All that has been established is his guilt could not be proved; it is still possible the accuser was telling the truth.

The current system for these cases is totally unsatisfactory; there should be anonymity on both sides until the verdict is known, and it should only be made public if a guilty verdict occurs. But we also need to look at the burden of proof in these cases, as only around 5% of reported rapes lead to convictions, and there is no way 95% of accusers put themselves through the ordeal of giving evidence in court when they are making it up.

[zurich_allan]

My point is that prior to the trial, no-one knew he was innocent, so why wish him luck? By the same token, would you wish Peter Tobin luck before his trial, because he was "innocent" then too?

I don't have inside info, but from what was reported in court, the accuser appears to be someone very close to him, not some random female from the past.

Some of the comments that have been made on social media tonight are a disgrace, with calls for naming and shaming the accuser. All that has been established is his guilt could not be proved; it is still possible the accuser was telling the truth.

The current system for these cases is totally unsatisfactory; there should be anonymity on both sides until the verdict is known, and it should only be made public if a guilty verdict occurs. But we also need to look at the burden of proof in these cases, as only around 5% of reported rapes lead to convictions, and there is no way 95% of accusers put themselves through the ordeal of giving evidence in court when they are making it up.

Do you mean look at reversing the burden of proof, or reducing the standard of proof? There are several mechanisms already in place to deal with the issue of problematic corroboration in sexual offences cases, but I agree that the current system does need overhauled - but how do you do that and still maintain the right of the accused to a fair trial? You can't just single out a category of mala in se offences for emotive reasons and say somebody can be found guilty on a lower standard - whatever is done has to be an overhaul of the whole criminal justice system and not just one category. The Carloway review has sought to address this with the removal of corroboration as a necessity for the facta probanda, but I don't think that's the way forward as no proper consideration has been given to appropriate additional safeguards in the absence of a requirement for corroboration.

[faraway saint]

Some of the comments that have been made on social media tonight are a disgrace, with calls for naming and shaming the accuser. All that has been established is his guilt could not be proved; it is still possible the accuser was telling the truth.

There have been many more disgraceful comments made against the accused, not sure why you don't mention these? It's equally as possible the accuser wasn't telling the truth?

The current system for these cases is totally unsatisfactory; there should be anonymity on both sides until the verdict is known, and it should only be made public if a guilty verdict occurs. But we also need to look at the burden of proof in these cases, as only around 5% of reported rapes lead to convictions, and there is no way 95% of accusers put themselves through the ordeal of giving evidence in court when they are making it up.

I agree 100%, as ZA mentioned, the current system is not ideal. The obvious difficulty in these cases, where the majority of crimes take place in private is difficult for bot the accuser and accused.

I'm still bemused you seem to be angling towards the supposed victims? Of course, as I've already stated, if anyone accused of these despicable crimes is found guilty, they deserve all that the current judicial system can hand out but at the same time the current situation where the accused is publicly hung out to dry on the basis of, until proved, unproven accusations, is criminal on it's own.

Edited September 10, 2013 by faraway saint

[dmc]

Victim can't be named yet this man has been dragged through the gutters. I feel sorry for him all this should have been behind closed doors in a court not national news.

Is the accuser not still legally a minor and this is the reason she can't be named??

[zurich_allan]

Is the accuser not still legally a minor and this is the reason she can't be named??

Yes, and this is part of the problem in Scottish (and other) law. The complainer is currently 17, so benefits from a cloak of anonymity that doesn't take into account any personal maturity, immaturity, intention, naivity, recklessness or responsibility. In our country (with varying levels of responsibility attached), you can write a will at 12, have sex at 16, be criminally responsible at 8, be prosecuted at 12, go to college at 15, drive at 17, get married at 16, get a (proper) job at 15, yet NOT take any responsibility and have a complete get out if you make a false accusation in spite of being deemed legally able to do all of this at the age of 17 - ONLY because you are 17. I'm NOT saying that this is what has happened here, but I AM trying to illustrate that an age based approach to law as opposed to a capacity based one is highly flawed.

Edited September 10, 2013 by zurich_allan

[faraway saint]

Yes, and this is part of the problem in Scottish (and other) law. The complainer is currently 17, so benefits from a cloak of anonymity that doesn't take into account any personal maturity, immaturity, intention, naivity, recklessness or responsibility. In our country (with varying levels of responsibility attached), you can write a will at 12, have sex at 16, be criminally responsible at 8, be prosecuted at 12, go to college at 15, drive at 17, get married at 16, get a (proper) job at 15, yet NOT take any responsibility and have a complete get out if you make a false accusation in spite of being deemed legally able to do all of this at the age of 17 - ONLY because you are 17. I'm NOT saying that this is what has happened here, but I AM trying to illustrate that an age based approach to law as opposed to a capacity based one is highly flawed.

Love a good factual based post.

Fancy marrying me?

[salmonbuddie]

I told him fact based posts would never catch on, he's just trying to prove me wrong. FACT!

[zurich_allan]

Love a good factual based post.

Fancy marrying me?

Lol, someone else beat you to it, but I'm all for sharing so what the hell!!

[Hendo]

Is the accuser not still legally a minor and this is the reason she can't be named??

I thought all alleged victims in sex abuse cases, regardless of age, had lifelong anonymity?

[zurich_allan]

I thought all alleged victims in sex abuse cases, regardless of age, had lifelong anonymity?

Not quite - they are all afforded it automatically from the outset, but the judge in the case has the absolute discretion to end the anonymity if he / she deems it either necessary in the interests of justice or in the public interest. Beyond that, accusers also have the choice to waive their anonymity if they so wish currently.

There is also precedent for proven malicious complainers to have anonymity removed via parliamentary privilege (See Shannon Taylor / Warren Blackwell case a few years ago - I don't have a link, but a quick google search will give you the details).

The law has very slighty differences north and south of the border, but the practice is identical.

However this is relating to complainers in sexual offences cases in general, as far as those complainers under the age of 18 there are various other statutory laws and orders that can be put in place relating to reporting restrictions that can be used in conjunction with the general anonymity (such as the various Children and Young Persons Acts - there are several - in both Scotland and England / Wales), making lifting anonymity all the more difficult - again, the use of the relevant areas of these statutory sections is entirely dependant on the low chronological age of the complainer.

Age based laws are used for no other reason than financial, resource and time limitations, and are not conducive to actual, real justice as related to the individuals involved.

Nobody can win an argument with me that it is right that a child aged 11 years and 364 days who factually murders somebody cannot under any circumstances be prosecuted in an ordinary court or legally held to account, whereas a child who is one day older can. You can have 11 - 12 year olds who are very much children and extremely naive, and you can also have 11 - 12 year olds who, although not mature still have a perfect awareness of the consequences of their actions and are perfectly capable of factually having an evil intent.

It's a highly complex area, and I certainly would never say that a minor or a complainer in a sexual abuse case shouldn't have anonymity afforded to them. What I am saying, is that a complete, blanket approach is not, never has been and never will be appropriate. It should always be about the circumstances of the individual case and nothing more.

[faraway saint]

Lol, someone else beat you to it, but I'm all for sharing so what the hell!!

Reported, pervert.

[nedflanders123]

Victim can't be named yet this man has been dragged through the gutters. I feel sorry for him all this should have been behind closed doors in a court not national news.

Totally agree and my question is what do we do with those who accused him? I am no legal expert but surely lying under oath and trying to destroy this man's credibility and career should now be considered by the court? Freddy Starr I believe is taking out a private prosecution against those who accused him and who subsequently failed when the court found him not guilty of all charges.

[HSS]

Totally agree and my question is what do we do with those who accused him? I am no legal expert but surely lying under oath and trying to destroy this man's credibility and career should now be considered by the court? Freddy Starr I believe is taking out a private prosecution against those who accused him and who subsequently failed when the court found him not guilty of all charges.

The accuser has not necessarily told lies.There may not have been enough evidence to find him guilty but his not guilty outcome does not mean he's totally innocent.If the trial had been in Scotland I'm quite sure it would have come back Not Proven...which really means guilty but we can't prove it.

I'm sure the truth will come out one day.

[Isabella Duke]

farawaysaint and nedflanders123 have yet again proved what a pair of despicable human beings they are on this thread.

[Drew]

The accuser has not necessarily told lies.There may not have been enough evidence to find him guilty but his not guilty outcome does not mean he's totally innocent.If the trial had been in Scotland I'm quite sure it would have come back Not Proven...which really means guilty but we can't prove it.

I'm sure the truth will come out one day.

Indeed.

It is also vital that people aren't discouraged from disclosing, reporting, and alleging abuse because they could possibly be vilified or even prosecuted if the accused isn't found guilty in the final analysis. Through work, I have met numerous people who have been subjected to all types of abuse, and I have seen how hard it can be to come forward and disclose such a thing, much less give evidence in court (something that can take great courage, no matter what age the person is). Anything that would have the effect of preventing people from disclosing abuse would be a grave and retrograde development.

People are accused of crimes and acquitted every day. Of course it is truly hellish to imagine being accused of something like this if you are wholly innocent, but this guy is no more deserving of our concern and sympathy than anyone else. I'm fine with accepting that the guy is innocent of the charges, but won't be losing any sleep in terms of his damaged reputation. I'm much more concerned about people who are being and have been abused being afforded protection and justice.