Man who falsely accused Louis Walsh charged with offense, because Louis is famous...

hatrickpatrick

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0908/1224303700226.html

AN UNEMPLOYED man gave two false statements to gardaí claiming he was sexually assaulted by X Factor judge Louis Walsh in a Dublin nightclub, a court heard yesterday.

Father-of-two Leonard Watters (24), from Navan, Co Meath, was arrested in June after allegedly making an unfounded claim to gardaí that Mr Walsh groped him in the toilets of the Krystle nightclub earlier this year.

He had been charged on June 29th at Dublin District Court under section 12 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 for making a false report to gardaí at Harcourt Terrace Garda station on June 20th last. Mr Watters had then been remanded on bail.

Funny, you never hear of anyone being punished for false accusations when the person being accused is just average joe. If someone made a false claim against you or I today, our reputations would be forever tarnished and the person responsible would probably face no penalties for it.

Nice to see the rich and famous are still treated better than the rest of us in this country, eh? :mad:

Giselle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0908/1224303700226.html



Funny, you never hear of anyone being punished for false accusations when the person being accused is just average joe. If someone made a false claim against you or I today, our reputations would be forever tarnished and the person responsible would probably face no penalties for it.

Nice to see the rich and famous are still treated better than the rest of us in this country, eh? :mad:

No, he was charged with an offense because he committed one.

who the fug

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0908/1224303700226.html



Funny, you never hear of anyone being punished for false accusations when the person being accused is just average joe. If someone made a false claim against you or I today, our reputations would be forever tarnished and the person responsible would probably face no penalties for it.

Nice to see the rich and famous are still treated better than the rest of us in this country, eh? :mad:

Average Joe not newsworthy, which is why he not in National Press.

Check local press for Aaverage Joe

hatrickpatrick

Giselle wrote: »

No, he was charged with an offense because he committed one.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been.
What I am saying is that I've heard a lot of cases of people being acquitted of sexual assault and other crimes, and rarely if ever does anyone get charged with knowingly making a false claim.

It's unfair IMO because just as in Louis Walsh's case, such claims stay with a person. But it seems that Louis Walsh will get better treatment than most because his case was high profile.

If I falsely accused you of something today, I would almost certainly never face any penalty for that. Have you ever heard of this happening to an ordinary person?

Giselle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been.
What I am saying is that I've heard a lot of cases of people being acquitted of sexual assault and other crimes, and rarely if ever does anyone get charged with knowingly making a false claim.

It's unfair IMO because just as in Louis Walsh's case, such claims stay with a person. But it seems that Louis Walsh will get better treatment than most because his case was high profile.

If I falsely accused you of something today, I would almost certainly never face any penalty for that. Have you ever heard of this happening to an ordinary person?

Perhaps thats because it wouldn't be as newsworthy, not because it doesn't happen?

I've no idea how many people are charged with making false accusations. I do know that it IS more newsworthy when its a familiar name involved, so thats probably why thats all we hear about.

I just don't know, but I'm glad he was charged no matter who is victim is. And people in the public eye are probably more at risk of that kind of victimisation.

7sr2z3fely84g5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been.
What I am saying is that I've heard a lot of cases of people being acquitted of sexual assault and other crimes, and rarely if ever does anyone get charged with knowingly making a false claim.

It's unfair IMO because just as in Louis Walsh's case, such claims stay with a person. But it seems that Louis Walsh will get better treatment than most because his case was high profile.

If I falsely accused you of something today, I would almost certainly never face any penalty for that. Have you ever heard of this happening to an ordinary person?

i think it was on his own choice to charge- http://xfactor.tellymix.co.uk/judges/36497-louis-walsh-vows-to-not-let-assault-accuser-get-away-with-peddling-lies-about-him.html

i think for one he is right to go ahead with charges,anything to do with sex crimes accusations do stick no matter how much you could protest your innocence.

Chips Lovell

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it a court case doesn't make it into the papers has it even happened?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0908/1224303700226.html



Funny, you never hear of anyone being punished for false accusations when the person being accused is just average joe. If someone made a false claim against you or I today, our reputations would be forever tarnished and the person responsible would probably face no penalties for it.

Nice to see the rich and famous are still treated better than the rest of us in this country, eh? :mad:

What are you on about, he obviously sued for defamation or something. Most people wouldnt bother.

If someone went to the national press and claimed you were a paedo, they would be charged if you pursued it.

Biggins

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Nice to see the rich and famous are still treated better than the rest of us in this country, eh? :mad:

Rubbish - he tried extortion/blackmail. He deserves what he gets.

But it seems that Louis Walsh will get better treatment than most because his case was high profile.

Can you actually prove Walsh(!) will get better treatment?
How? Will the chap be charged with an extra, extra special charge not able to passed down upon onto meer other mortals, who do similar on others?

The law is the law (for all those that try this stunt as he did).

Have you ever heard of this happening to an ordinary person?

No - but then they wouldn't have this stunt tried on them as such - would they!
They wouldn't have the ever ongoing publicity exposure to worry about names and media reputation.

7sr2z3fely84g5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nice to see the rich and famous are still treated better than the rest of us in this country, eh? :mad:

this is probably the reason-

AN UNEMPLOYED man gave two false statements to gardaí claiming he was sexually assaulted

You could say he presented the evidence himself.

hondasam

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0908/1224303700226.html



Funny, you never hear of anyone being punished for false accusations when the person being accused is just average joe. If someone made a false claim against you or I today, our reputations would be forever tarnished and the person responsible would probably face no penalties for it.

Nice to see the rich and famous are still treated better than the rest of us in this country, eh? :mad:

He tried to blackmail him and ruin his reputation. I admire Louis for not giving into the blackmail.

Morlar

I think the point of the op is that everyone who makes false allegations should be charged, not JUST the one against mr Walsh. People who are replying to this in terms of 'fair play to Louis Walsh' don't appear to have read the thread.

Lord TSC

Morlar wrote: »

I think the point of the op is that everyone who makes false allegations should be charged, not JUST the one against mr Walsh. People who are replying to this in terms of 'fair play to Louis Walsh' don't appear to have read the thread.

They should, but does anyone have the facts of how many cases like this occur and don't go on to this stage?

The point is being made that even when it does happen in every day life, it's not national news. Walsh is a celebrity and as such the story gets reported. If it were me, a normal guy with no claim to fame, I'd counter-charge. BUT that wouldn't make it into national press. It wouldn't be covered. But just cause it's not covered and made public outside a small circle of the people directly involved doesn't mean it's not happening.

Sonics2k

Morlar wrote: »

I think the point of the op is that everyone who makes false allegations should be charged, not JUST the one against mr Walsh. People who are replying to this in terms of 'fair play to Louis Walsh' don't appear to have read the thread.

Most people are charged for Defamation of Character if they do make false charges against someone. But it's not for the Gardai to decide.

Obviously it does vary case by case, but the Courts are more likely to be harder on someone who makes a very serious allegation and takes it public, eg to the Media.

AnonoBoy

I never thought I'd say this but I am totally on Louis Walsh's side on this one.

Mr Jinx

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been.
What I am saying is that I've heard a lot of cases of people being acquitted of sexual assault and other crimes, and rarely if ever does anyone get charged with knowingly making a false claim.

It's unfair IMO because just as in Louis Walsh's case, such claims stay with a person. But it seems that Louis Walsh will get better treatment than most because his case was high profile.

If I falsely accused you of something today, I would almost certainly never face any penalty for that. Have you ever heard of this happening to an ordinary person?

Making an allegation against someone is not a criminal offence, its civil. Making a false statement to Gardai is a criminal offence

ScouseMouse

Mr Jinx wrote: »

Making an allegation against someone is not a criminal offence, its civil. Making a false statement to Gardai is a criminal offence

Quite right.

Going to a garda station and making written statements of false accusations wastes garda time and soils Louis Walshs name.

The cops are doing him for wasting their time.

Then hopefully he will be done for slander or maybe even blackmail.

Might stop another skanger trying the same thing.

MagicSean

Plenty of people get done for the same thing. I'm sorry you don't get notified of each case HatrickPatrick but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

jluv

And if someone made an allegation against you it would not be plastered on all the newspapers because you are not famous(i'm presuming!). but as it was in Louis Walshes case it now is only fair that the false accuser is now made to face the same humiliation that he was.

starbelgrade

Louis Walsh ate my hamster.