Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not relevant, as there was no court case. The thread is specifically talking about people who have been officially accused and due to go on trial...

But that makes no sense, those who are accused of wrongdoing so significant that it is a matter for the Gardai and the Courts be protected, those who haven't actually been the subject of an investigation have their names publicised.

Do you think this story should be published? If the people are charged with fraud and the matter ramped up...do you then think they should be granted anonymity? That's just not logical.

It makes perfect sense - people accused of more serious crimes will suffer more serious consequences.

I have no problem with the story being published - he did what he was accused of doing. Do you think it would have been fair to publish it if he hadn't?

Vic_08

Shenshen wrote: »

I had never heard of these people before, never met them and it's unlikely I ever will.

What purpose did printing their names everywhere other then discredit the work of the charity itself, which despite not receiving their full funds due to fraud probably still was doing good work?

It publicly outed them as the crooks they are.

I don't want to live in a society shrouded in secrecy where the primary defence to wrongdoing is silencing criticism, publishing of facts and good old censorship. Too much of that already happens without enshrining it in law.

That is why the "privacy" injunctions currently being abused in the UK are so egregious, the relatively trivial and salacious nature of most of the content hides the damage such laws are doing to very important rights we all should have not to be criminalised for free speech.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

But that makes no sense, those who are accused of wrongdoing so significant that it is a matter for the Gardai and the Courts be protected, those who haven't actually been the subject of an investigation have their names publicised.

Do you think this story should be published? If the people are charged with fraud and the matter ramped up...do you then think they should be granted anonymity? That's just not logical.

It makes perfect sense - those accused of more serious crimes will suffer bigger consequences if they are tried by media and ultimately acquitted.

Should the story have been published? Well he did what he was accused of so I have no problem with it. Would it have been fair to publish it if he hadn't?

Shenshen

Vic_08 wrote: »

It publicly outed them as the crooks they are.

I don't want to live in a society shrouded in secrecy where the primary defence to wrongdoing is silencing criticism, publishing of facts and good old censorship. Too much of that already happens without enshrining it in law.

That is why the "privacy" injunctions currently being abused in the UK are so egregious, the relatively trivial and salacious nature of most of the content hides the damage such laws are doing to very important rights we all should have not to be criminalised for free speech.

Shrouded in secrecy? Very dramatic.

So, where's the benefit to you as a member of society that you now know that someone you had never heard of until yesterday was stealing money from a charity you possibly hadn't heard off before either?

The charity's reputation is now damaged, possibly beyond repair. Less people will consider donating or volunteering, they may or may not have to cease operations and won't be able to provide assistance to suicidal individuals.

All so that the public can get their weekly outrage kick.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It makes perfect sense - those accused of more serious crimes will suffer bigger consequences if they are tried by media and ultimately acquitted.

Should the story have been published? Well he did what he was accused of so I have no problem with it. Would it have been fair to publish it if he hadn't?

How do you know he did what he has been accused of? You only know what you know from what you have read in the media...but if he is charged with fraud you believe his name should not be published?

All we know is that he is accused of wrongdoing and the authorities are clearly concerned so an injunction was granted to preserve the status quo as is pretty standard in incidents where offices and businesses are the subject of suspicion...but he hasn't even been charged with any wrongdoing let alone convicted.

What you are arguing is that people who haven't even faced a criminal trial should have no anonymity, but those charged with wrongdoing get that benefit. That is simply not logical.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you know he did what he has been accused of? You only know what you know from what you have read in the media...but if he is charged with fraud you believe his name should not be published?

All we know is that he is accused of wrongdoing and the authorities are clearly concerned so an injunction was granted to preserve the status quo as is pretty standard in incidents where offices and businesses are the subject of suspicion...but he hasn't even been charged with any wrongdoing let alone convicted.

What you are arguing is that people who haven't even faced a criminal trial should have no anonymity, but those charged with wrongdoing get that benefit. That is simply not logical.

I assumed - perhaps erroneously - that by resigning, he'd accepted guilt. In which case no - I'd argue that he should not have been named, my apologies for the confusion. Although anonymity would be difficult considering his position, but that's part and parcel of such a job.

On the flip side: if he was tried and found NOT guilty, do you think it acceptable that the staff at the charity should have suffered?

You said earlier, "Surely we should cherish basic freedoms such as the freedom to publish the names of those accused of wrongs, but to be liable to be sued should those accusations prove wrong" - well, freedom is NOT absolute and certain responsibilities have to be respected and this is one of them.

You can't just publish what you like and say, "ah well - I have freedom!"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I assumed - perhaps erroneously - that by resigning, he'd accepted guilt.

That is an incorrect conclusion, resigning is far from an acceptance that a crime was committed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You can't just publish what you like and say, "ah well - I have freedom!"

No no, you can't publish what you like, but you can publish that as a matter of fact someone stands accused of wrongdoing where, as a matter of fact that person stands accused of wrongdoing.

I don't understand the issue about acquittal. That's like saying that, where bankers were acquitted, we must take the view that the poor staff in the banks must have suffered greatly. That's not my view anyway.

If you think he should not have been named, well in fairness you are being consistent. Does this cover all figures, politicians, bankers, celebrities etc? Do you think the press should not be able to make any claims about any named people ever unless and until there is a conviction?

I think in this instance the media has done a great service. The authorities are clearly concerned and I think the media have every right to publish this fact.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I assumed - perhaps erroneously - that by resigning, he'd accepted guilt.

That is an incorrect conclusion, resigning is far from an acceptance that a crime was committed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You can't just publish what you like and say, "ah well - I have freedom!"

No no, you can't publish what you like, but you can publish that as a matter of fact someone stands accused of wrongdoing where, as a matter of fact that person stands accused of wrongdoing.

I don't understand the issue about acquittal. That's like saying that, where bankers were acquitted, we must take the view that the poor staff in the banks must have suffered greatly. That's not my view anyway.

If you think he should not have been named, well in fairness you are being consistent. Does this cover all figures, politicians, bankers, celebrities etc? Do you think the press should not be able to make any claims about any named people ever unless and until there is a conviction?

I think in this instance the media has done a great service. The authorities are clearly concerned and I think the media have every right to publish this fact.

The media can do this without making people. The service they do is entirely selfish: if they have evidence of criminal behaviour, why not just take it to the police?

Why do you NEED to know names?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The media can do this without making people. The service they do is entirely selfish: if they have evidence of criminal behaviour, why not just take it to the police?

Why do you NEED to know names?

Because if a charity, or a person within a charity, is accused of financial irregularities, I think it is very much in the public interest that we know the nature of the accusations, the charity, the people involved etc. Angela Kerins was not charged with any offence, the allegations against her simply related to having a very big salary and how much was paid from money collected. In fact afair she threatened the PAC with legal action. Again, that was reported and it is very much in the interests of democracy that that take place.

riclad

I think the problem with many irish charitys is the high wages paid to staff ,and lax regulation more than fraud.
Why commit fraud when you get paid 100k plus and expenses
and a large pension if you retire .
Charitys should have to publish all staff wages over 20k, all pensions,
all expenses over 5k .
How much is spent on wages ,admin, versus how much is collected from the public.
This should be on public record .
People accused of sexual crimes ,rape etc should not be named
until they are found guilty .
If A man is accused of rape his reputation may be ruined even if he is proved
to be innocent in the court.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Because if a charity, or a person within a charity, is accused of financial irregularities, I think it is very much in the public interest that we know the nature of the accusations, the charity, the people involved etc. Angela Kerins was not charged with any offence, the allegations against her simply related to having a very big salary and how much was paid from money collected. In fact afair she threatened the PAC with legal action. Again, that was reported and it is very much in the interests of democracy that that take place.

In this specific case maybe - but you seem to have sidestepepd ovetr the qwider implications of the charity, its staff and the people it serves. Should they suffer?

So, we return to the questions I asked earlier:
1 - Is it fair on the staff (or the charity) if he is later found not guilty
2 - Why do you need to know the know of someone (generally speaking - not in this specific case)?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In this specific case maybe - but you seem to have sidestepepd ovetr the qwider implications of the charity, its staff and the people it serves. Should they suffer?

So, we return to the questions I asked earlier:
1 - Is it fair on the staff (or the charity) if he is later found not guilty
2 - Why do you need to know the know of someone (generally speaking - not in this specific case)?

Transparency is simply transparency, it is not meant to be "fair" or "unfair".

No one in the media has said "this means everyone in Console is wrong".

I don't need to know. I think the public has a right to know. How exactly would you rather the story covered? Individuals and charity not named? Would you think headlines like "some unnamed head of some charity we cannot identify accused of huge financial mismanagement" acceptable in a functioning democracy? It would lead to outcry.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Transparency is simply transparency, it is not meant to be "fair" or "unfair".

No one in the media has said "this means everyone in Console is wrong".

I don't need to know. I think the public has a right to know. How exactly would you rather the story covered? Individuals and charity not named? Would you think headlines like "some unnamed head of some charity we cannot identify accused of huge financial mismanagement" acceptable in a functioning democracy? It would lead to outcry.

Oh, nicely sidestepped! We started off with a legal question and suddenly the legality boils down to it not being supposed to be fair or unfair? Lovely. If anything, this case proves exactly why anonymity should be granted: because innocent people who have nothing to do with the crime get shafted. But who cares about them? It's not supposed to be fair, after all!

Sorry, but justice trumps journalism every time

The problem here is that you've twisted the original question to suit one specific story you appear to have an agenda about. I've given you my opinion on it: I believe it should be just as the public can not handle information repsonsibly, you don't. The guy ultimately resigned, so has no further influence overt the charity, so why is identification nessecary?

You are right - you don't need to know. You have no right to know.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Oh, nicely sidestepped! We started off with a legal question and suddenly the legality boils down to it not being supposed to be fair or unfair? Lovely. If anything, this case proves exactly why anonymity should be granted: because innocent people who have nothing to do with the crime get shafted. But who cares about them? It's not supposed to be fair, after all!

Sorry, but justice trumps journalism every time

The problem here is that you've twisted the original question to suit one specific story you appear to have an agenda about. I've given you my opinion on it: I believe it should be just as the public can not handle information repsonsibly, you don't. The guy ultimately resigned, so has no further influence overt the charity, so why is identification nessecary?

You are right - you don't need to know. You have no right to know.

You seem to be getting annoyed, suggesting I have an agenda. I don't...tbh I don't think defending the freedom if the press suggests an agenda.

I have not twisted the matter to suit one story at all. Every day all our newspapers are full of accusations and stories involving individuals in all walks of life. From nursing homes the subject of HSE investigations to professionals charged with misconduct to people before the courts to politicians accused of doing wrong to questions about Denis O'Brien and so on and on and on. I think this transparency is essential in democracy. I think the converse is a charter for rogues.

As for sidestepping, I answered both of your questions in my last post. You have yet to answer mine. How precisely would you see this story reported? Not reported at all? Names of individuals and charity withheld? Ironically, as between us, only one of us completely misinterpreted the story, you assumed that it meant the person was guilty of a crime, I don't think that at all and the press never suggested that.

Vic_08

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In this specific case maybe - but you seem to have sidestepepd ovetr the qwider implications of the charity, its staff and the people it serves. Should they suffer?

Possibly, yes. Like it or not the founder of the charity has been implicated in serious financial irregularities, if that has an effect on the organisation then it is down to the act not the person reporting the act.

Is it fair to not publicise this and allow potential investors, donators and staff to get involved with an organisation that is being run badly when they can be informed otherwise?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, we return to the questions I asked earlier:
1 - Is it fair on the staff (or the charity) if he is later found not guilty

That is not relevant, if the state does not proceed with a case or secure a conviction it does not necessarily mean that the facts reported on did not happen.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

2 - Why do you need to know the know of someone (generally speaking - not in this specific case)?

Why do you feel that people doing wrong should be entitled to protection from public scrutiny?

Do you think that censorship and suppression of facts is a good thing?

Do you think that the Catholic church would have ever admitted their role in protecting paedophile priests and abusive regimes in state facilities run by religious orders? Would they even have stopped these practices?

Do you believe it was wrong for these crimes to have been publicised by media outlets as after all nobody had been tried or convicted of anything?

Do you believe it is wrong for Jimmy Saville to ever have been publicly named as a child abuser? He was never convicted of anything either.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this transparency is essential in democracy. I think the converse is a charter for rogues.

Not when it interfers on jusrtice, it isn't.

As for sidestepping, I answered both of your questions in my last post. You have yet to answer mine. How precisely would you see this story reported? Not reported at all? Names of individuals and charity withheld? Ironically, as between us, only one of us completely misinterpreted the story, you assumed that it meant the person was guilty of a crime, I don't think that at all and the press never suggested that.

You sidestepped the first one: is it fair that the chairty and it's employees suffer if he is found innocent.

Personally, I'd rather it not be reported at all. I'd rather it be handed over to the police and have them deal with it directly. You disagree - you think trasnparency is more important than justice. End of specific dicussion. We're going round in circles.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vic_08 wrote: »

Possibly, yes. Like it or not the founder of the charity has been implicated in serious financial irregularities, if that has an effect on the organisation then it is down to the act not the person reporting the act.

Is it fair to not publicise this and allow potential investors, donators and staff to get involved with an organisation that is being run badly when they can be informed otherwise?

Yes, as he's no longer involved with the charity.

Make the accusations known to the charity as well. They can decide what to do, and force a resignation if they wish. To assume the corruption is more widespread WITHOUT PROOF is EXACLTY the kind of thing that anonymity is diesgned to stop.

That is not relevant, if the state does not proceed with a case or secure a conviction it does not necessarily mean that the facts reported on did not happen.

Again, this is the thing people are trying to stop - the "no smoke without fire" crowd. What's the point in a trial if you're going to assume guilt but the trial didn;t work out the way you wanted?

Why do you feel that people doing wrong should be entitled to protection from public scrutiny?

Do you think that censorship and suppression of facts is a good thing?

Do you think that the Catholic church would have ever admitted their role in protecting paedophile priests and abusive regimes in state facilities run by religious orders? Would they even have stopped these practices?

Do you believe it was wrong for these crimes to have been publicised by media outlets as after all nobody had been tried or convicted of anything?

Do you believe it is wrong for Jimmy Saville to ever have been publicly named as a child abuser? He was never convicted of anything either.

Sorrry, but the emotional heart-tugging doesn't work on me.

You're assuming these people are all innocent - they weren't. Name them when convicted, fine. Name someone convicted of a pedophile offense before trial and have him found innocent, and then you get people saying " if the state does not proceed with a case or secure a conviction it does not necessarily mean that the facts reported on did not happen" - see? And you feel quite justified in destroying an innocent man's name.

regarding Saville - you're not going to destroy a man's life when hes dead.

Again - yes, I belive censorship is nessecary at times and reporting accused details before conviction is one of them. Justice is more important. You can pull up whatever specifci cases you like and play as many whatabouttery cards as you like, but it's not going to change it: by exposing names you risk injustice if the trial finds him innocent.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You sidestepped the first one: is it fair that the chairty and it's employees suffer if he is found innocent.

Personally, I'd rather it not be reported at all. I'd rather it be handed over to the police and have them deal with it directly. You disagree - you think trasnparency is more important than justice.

No no, I think transparency is part of justice. You seem to regard them as competing interests. It is part and parcel of democracy, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. What you are saying is that reputation is more important than that.

We see it here in the allegation that the family courts were inconsistent in their rulings because there the in camera rule prevented reporting, and of course this was recently recognised and corrected.

If he is found innocent, then of course he should not suffer. But no media is reporting his guilt, merely that he is being investigated, there are serious allegations. And that's the nature of all investigations, people may suffer. One cannot prevent an investigation on the basis of damage to reputation, that's a fundamental aspect of law underpinned again in the Ian Bailey decision.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, I think transparency is part of justice. You seem to regard them as competing interests. It is part and parcel of democracy, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. What you are saying is that reputation is more important than that.

You seemed to think it was seperate and more importand when you said: "Transparency is simply transparency, it is not meant to be "fair" or "unfair""

We see it here in the allegation that the family courts were inconsistent in their rulings because there the in camera rule prevented reporting, and of course this was recently recognised and corrected.

If he is found innocent, then of course he should not suffer. But no media is reporting his guilt, merely that he is being investigated, there are serious allegations. And that's the nature of all investigations, people may suffer. One cannot prevent an investigation on the basis of damage to reputation, that's a fundamental aspect of law underpinned again in the Ian Bailey decision.

None of these needs a name to be reveled in order for justice to be served or for a media organisation to report it.

How does exposing the name of the accused help the family court to be consistant? The proceedings yes - no problam with that, especially after the business is complete - but we're talking individuals being named.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How does exposing the name of the accused help the family court to be consistant? The proceedings yes - no problam with that, especially after the business is complete - but we're talking individuals being named.

No no, I was merely pointing out where publicity and the law dovetail very neatly.

I would not be in favour of names in family law proceedings being published. And as I posted before, I would not be against the idea of preventing names being published in all sexual offences because of the particular stigma - the same logic that currently sees the name of the victim being withheld. But the categories where names are withheld should be very narrow, and only in cases where public interest is less than reputation. But for all other allegations of wrongdoing, or even critical comment, I think the allegation should be particularised.

You mentioned earlier about damage to staff. If the names of the people and charity in the Console issue were hidden and we were only allowed hear of serious allegations against some unspecified head of some unspecified charity...would the risk not be that all staff across all charities be affected?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, I was merely pointing out where publicity and the law dovetail very neatly.

I would not be in favour of names in family law proceedings being published. And as I posted before, I would not be against the idea of preventing names being published in all sexual offences because of the particular stigma - the same logic that currently sees the name of the victim being withheld. But the categories where names are withheld should be very narrow, and only in cases where public interest is less than reputation. But for all other allegations of wrongdoing, or even critical comment, I think the allegation should be particularised.

So, with the exception of the charity case, you've been agreeing with me all along..?

You mentioned earlier about damage to staff. If the names of the people and charity in the Console issue were hidden and we were only allowed hear of serious allegations against some unspecified head of some unspecified charity...would the risk not be that all staff across all charities be affected?

I'd doubt it. People are unlikely to say, ""I'm not going to deal with this charity, in case it's them!"

In any case, I still believe the welfare of the charity and it's staff (and the people they help) have priority. If you don't believe this, I'm sorry - but you come across as a very heartless individual.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, with the exception of the charity case, you've been agreeing with me all along...

No, again you misrepresent what I said.

I said in the first few pages that I would agree with a very narrow restriction in sexual offence cases.

I still think your idea that no names should ever be mentioned in connection with an accusation is kinda bonkers and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law, justice and indeed democracy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In any case, I still believe the welfare of the charity and it's staff (and the people they help) have priority. If you don't believe this, I'm sorry - but you come across as a very heartless individual.

Again, you seem flustered. From saying I had an agenda to now getting downright personal. Speaking of heartless, you were the person who jumped to judgement and thought Paul Kelly was guilty of a criminal offence...sheesh at least allow him the right of defence! Then again, you are defending a patently ridiculous position, even totalitarian dictatorships don't have the regimes of censorship you propose...so I guess any port in a storm.

Anyway, we'll just agree to disagree, and every time you see the name of Denis O'Brien or Bertie Ahern or Paul Kelly or Angela Kerins or David Drumm and so on, you'll just have to rail at the injustice of it all and the damage to their reputation.

bnt

A couple of years ago I helped a guy who had been assaulted, and last year I was called to the Central Criminal Court to stand by in case I was needed as a witness. On the way in, there was some young idiot who was trying to conceal his identity by pulling his jacket over his head. I almost cracked up laughing. Dude ... if there's one place where anonymity is not an option, it's in the court where you're being tried for a crime.

So, no, I don't agree. In these days of light sentencing and criminals being let out early due to overcrowding, jail sentences are clearly not working as a deterrent, so there has to be a societal cost too. I was informally told that the defendant in my case (who plead guilty straight away) had committed several serious assaults in the past without ever doing jail time.

riclad

Maybe it would be better to not have the accused named in a case
,until it go,s to court and the person is proven guilty .
Many people will accuse someone of a crime ,
and people assume the accused must be guilty .
the accused may find it hard to get work in future ,even if found innocent .
The victim should not named in certain case,s ,
where to do so, it might imply the husband or family is guilty of a crime,
or where the victim is under 16 .

please helpThank YOU

Hello to the good people of Boards .this is my First post Please Help I was False and Malicious Allegation of Child abuse in Family Law .And by the Garda Siochana in Child Custody dispute Hse Social Workers Section 20 under the child care act. and it was Hell and untrue

please helpThank YOU

The false Allegation went on for 3 years and the Garda siochana keep coming to our house with the hse social workers False Allegations included Murder,child abduction, hit n run , child abuse, and the list gos on .Please help

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I still think your idea that no names should ever be mentioned in connection with an accusation is kinda bonkers and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law, justice and indeed democracy.

My understanding of law is based on innocent until proven guilty. Hardly bonkers. But accept that, in some cases, anonymity should be granted, but not others? Why? If you accept that people accused of sexual crimes can be tarnished, why not others?

And you call my case inconsistant?

Again, you seem flustered. From saying I had an agenda to now getting downright personal. Speaking of heartless, you were the person who jumped to judgement and thought Paul Kelly was guilty of a criminal offence...sheesh at least allow him the right of defence! Then again, you are defending a patently ridiculous position, even totalitarian dictatorships don't have the regimes of censorship you propose...so I guess any port in a storm.

After I corrected myself, you refered to my argument as "at least consistant" and it's "flustered"...?

I've told yo urepeatedly what my stance is on this one, but you simply don't accept it and still keep dragging us back to it.

If you believe anonymity should be granted in SOME cases, then sorry - you're own opinion is inconsistant. Either you can trust people with this inofrmation, or you can't. Make your mind up.

Anyway, we'll just agree to disagree, and every time you see the name of Denis O'Brien or Bertie Ahern or Paul Kelly or Angela Kerins or David Drumm and so on, you'll just have to rail at the injustice of it all and the damage to their reputation.

If you wish to agreed to disagree, why are you still dragging us back here long after I've clarified my stance and made several attmepts to move on?

Further more, I only debated one of those cases.

TO CLARIFY:
No names until a conviction. I don't care who you are or what you're accused of. Ever. I can't make myself clearer that that. You can go on "but what about" as much as you like, I'm not going to change that:
- You do NOT have a right to know
- You do NOT have a NEED to know
- Knowing or not knowing a name is NOT going to influence whether or not justice is done (court trials become public upon conclusion anyway)
- Knowing or not knowing a name is NOT going to result in a lack of transparency (again- court trails become public upon conclusion - if a not guilty verdict is rendered, you'll STILL have all the facts)
- Peopl are not responsible enough to have this information (case in point - you're happy for the charity to suffer regardless of the outcome, you believe them to be so in the case with certain trials, and at least three people have said in this thread, "just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent - which kind of makes you wonder what the point of a trail is in the first place, let alone anonymity)

I'm done here. I'm not going around in circles any more or being called "flustered" by someone who's own argument is inconsistent. Make whatever unsubstantiated or moralistic claims you want - they probably won't be accurate anyway. Unsubscribing from thread.

Vic_08

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The false Allegation went on for 3 years and the Garda siochana keep coming to our house with the hse social workers False Allegations included Murder,child abduction, hit n run , child abuse, and the list gos on .Please help

Talk to a solicitor.

please helpThank YOU

I Am a Falsely Accused Person of Child ABUSE . and it is hell on Earth my Case is a Witch hunt by An Garda Siochana and the Hse Social Workers from the Very Start you are Guilty.and the and most of your Friends will Turn on you and Family .False Child Allegations Your name is on the An Garda Siochana Pulse for Life Even When Proven Innocent

please helpThank YOU

hello vic08 I have Gone to a Solictors And Barristers and the told me this is going on every day in the Family Law Courts .I joke Not I Was Shocked