Sil Fox cleared (Very clear video evidence of lies of accuser)

whomitconcerns

Now that he has been clearerd and the accuser shown to have been 100% lying, cctv video clearly showing his hand no where near her. why does she get to remain anonymous and does someone like that get charged? The judge specifically rejected his legal teams claims to his right to privacy

Hes an 85 year old man, who (whether you think hes funny or not) had his life upended by her for whatever purpose she had in mind, and she gets to slink away?? Or have I missed something?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/comedian-sil-fox-set-to-sue-state-over-sex-assault-case-dismissal-39311141.html

Rodney Bathgate

Seems ridiculous that she gets away with a false allegation and remains anonymous. She should be prosecuted for wasting police time, making a false accusation and perjury as she clearly lied and her anonymity should be removed.

Lemsiper

No fücking way should she get off without repercussions.

Because it shines a light on, and makes **** of, the #ibelieveher position.

It would be better for them for this incident to slip away with as little fuss as possible.

Rodney Bathgate

#Ibelievesil #idonotbelieveher

Omackeral

It would be refreshing if the usual talking heads from the various hashtag movements came out and condemned this in the strongest possible manner without any slant on it. Just say this is absolutely disgusting and leave it there.

whomitconcerns

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it shines a light on, and makes **** of, the #ibelieveher position.

It would be better for them for this incident to slip away with as little fuss as possible.

not sure if sarcastic or not but it is an interesting point, due to this womans lies, if its publicised it makes it harder for actual victims to be believed, potentially. BUT if its not then Sil Fox is always stuck with some stigma potentially....

She has made it worse for both sides by doing what she has done.

Atlantic Dawn

He should never have been named in the media unless a guilty verdict was reached, complete crooked system we have.

SEPT 23 1989

Name and sue her

The J Stands for Jay

I've never heard of SIL Fox and no info on who he is from a quick Google, just reports of his intention to sue the state. Don't recall hearing of the case when it started either. Should he sue himself for Streisanding himself?

Rodney Bathgate

McGaggs wrote: »

I've never heard of SIL Fox and no info on who he is from a quick Google, just reports of his intention to sue the state. Don't recall hearing of the case when it started either. Should he sue himself for Streisanding himself?

You may never have heard of him, but plenty of people have. And plenty of people heard or read media coverage of his being charged etc. If even one of those people didn’t hear that he was cleared then an injustice has been done.

And then of course you have the idiots who will say there is no smoke without fire or argue that he wasn’t found to be innocent, he was just not found to be guilty.

This should never have gotten to court and he should never have been named. The system is broken.

whomitconcerns

McGaggs wrote: »

I've never heard of SIL Fox and no info on who he is from a quick Google, just reports of his intention to sue the state. Don't recall hearing of the case when it started either. Should he sue himself for Streisanding himself?

Hes a very well known for being a round the houses comedian in the 80s and 90s. Certainly if you werent around then you wouldnt have heard of him. He never made it BIG BIG but you'd see his name all over the country in local venues.

The J Stands for Jay

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

You may never have heard of him, but plenty of people have. And plenty of people heard or read media coverage of his being charged etc. If even one of those people didn’t hear that he was cleared then an injustice has been done.

And then of course you have the idiots who will say there is no smoke without fire or argue that he wasn’t found to be innocent, he was just not found to be guilty.

This should never have gotten to court and he should never have been named. The system is broken.

It's ridiculous that such simple evidence wasn't seen by the DPP. And if it was it's ridiculous that they went ahead.

LollipopJimmy

I heard an interview with him a few weeks ago, I think it was Ivan Yates he was on with, anyway as soon as word of this casegot out initially Sil went from a fairly full booking diary to an empty one and it impacted greatly on his health and wellbeing.

However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The reason she's not named is to not act as a deterrent for genuine victims cunning forward. Not saying I agree with that, just making the point. And it's up to the ibeliever hashtag crowd to condemn her as well - she's screwing them over too.

The inconsistentcy is that he was named - he should never have been named, THAT was the problem. No one should have been named while the investigation was ongoing

And yes, she should absolutely face criminal charges.

Sky King

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The reason she's not named is to not act as a deterrent for genuine victims cunning forward. .

How would clear evidence of a liar deter genuine victims?

People should not be allowed to make claims without some form of repercussion if it is found out they are lying - if not then there is no incentive for unscrupulous people to refrain from chancing their arm and making a claim.

Rodney Bathgate

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I heard an interview with him a few weeks ago, I think it was Ivan Yates he was on with, anyway as soon as word of this casegot out initially Sil went from a fairly full booking diary to an empty one and it impacted greatly on his health and wellbeing.

However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.

This is misleading. She lied. What she claimed happened never happened. It is not a case that the jury believed him over her. It never got to that point. The case was dismissed by the judge because the CCTV proved that what she claimed happened simply did not happen.

This lady is not a ‘genuine person’, she was not ‘telling the truth’. There needs to be serious repercussions for false accusation cases like this.

Omackeral

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The reason she's not named is to not act as a deterrent for genuine victims coming forward.

Not having that. There’s a genuine difference between being caught as proven liar and not having enough evidence to get a conviction.

corner of hells

I'm aware of a woman who did that twice , was prosecuted and identified.
Id imagine there is a possibility of the Gardai and DPP further down the road having a look again at that incident.

LollipopJimmy

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

This is misleading. She lied. What she claimed happened never happened. It is not a case that the jury believed him over her. It never got to that point. The case was dismissed by the judge because the CCTV proved that what she claimed happened simply did not happen.

This lady is not a ‘genuine person’, she was not ‘telling the truth’. There needs to be serious repercussions for false accusation cases like this.

What is misleading in my post?

Omackeral wrote: »

Not having that. There’s a genuine difference between being caught as proven liar and not having enough evidence to get a conviction.

I agree with you however the public shaming of the accuser in this case could stop a genuine victim moving forward out of fear.

JPCN1

The scales of Justice seem to be uneven here. Either you name both or you name neither.

He is an extremely lucky man regarding the CCTV as the Judge said the Court was impressed by the complainant....

He should certainly sue.

Omackeral

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I agree with you however the public shaming of the accuser in this case could stop a genuine victim moving forward out of fear.

Unless they’ve purposely set them up, how could that be a problem? We’re dealing with evidential proof here. As I said, an accused person getting a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean the defendant was maliciously lying or even lying at all.

Should only be the case were something is proven as a falsehood.

maestroamado

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Name and sue her

I have not fallowed these cases apart from Belfast and we couldn't avoid that.
What is stopping the accused person from naming the person that made a false complaint...

Surely the DPP has a lot of questions to answer here why did they let the case go-ahead.

Rodney Bathgate

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

What is misleading in my post?

There wouldn’t and shouldn’t be a fear of being punished in the same way in the vast majority of cases because the accuser isn’t found to have lied in the vast majority of cases. In this case it was dismissed before going to the jury. This is an exceptional case, there is incontrovertible proof that she lied, she is not a ‘genuine person’, so the system should treat her differently as a result. As I said that should have no impact on the vast majority of legitimate accusations (regardless of the final outcome), so there should be no fear of this happening if the accuser is telling the truth.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sky King wrote: »

How would clear evidence of a liar deter genuine victims?

People should not be allowed to make claims without some form of repercussion if it is found out they are lying - if not then there is no incentive for unscrupulous people to refrain from chancing their arm and making a claim.

The fear that they might lose the case and then be treated as liars. In a clear case of lying such as this, yeah - name and shame - but only if it's clear. And only AFTER the case is finished.

As I said: I'm not agreeing with it, just pointing out the logic.

Rodney Bathgate

maestroamado wrote: »

I have not fallowed these cases apart from Belfast and we couldn't avoid that.
What is stopping the accused person from naming the person that made a false complaint...

I assume he would be found in contempt of court and imprisoned?

Harry Palmr

The accused should never be named until found guilty, anyone who makes a false claim should be charged.

If I were Sil Fox and probably younger and a bit richer I'd take a personal civil action against this accuser.

nullzero

We need to stop identifying anybody in these cases until they are over.

LollipopJimmy

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

There wouldn’t and shouldn’t be a fear of being punished in the same way in the vast majority of cases because the accuser isn’t found to have lied in the vast majority of cases. In this case it was dismissed before going to the jury. This is an exceptional case, there is incontrovertible proof that she lied, she is not a ‘genuine person’, so the system should treat her differently as a result. As I said that should have no impact on the vast majority of legitimate accusations (regardless of the final outcome), so there should be no fear of this happening if the accuser is telling the truth.

I am of the opinion that this could lead to fear among genuine cases, fear of not being believed is one of the big reasons why victims don't come forward.

My opinion being different to yours does not make my post misleading btw

Rodney Bathgate

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

My opinion being different to yours does not make my post misleading btw

I disagree. Here is your post (the part I have an issue with):

“However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.”

This would be accurate if she was a genuine person. We know she lied, so she is not a genuine person. No one is suggesting punishing in the vast majority of cases, because the vast majority of cases do not involve clear cut lying like this case does. This is an exceptional case so trying to downplay the lying aspect is misleading.

LollipopJimmy

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I disagree. Here is your post (the part I have an issue with):

“However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.”

This would be accurate if she was a genuine person. We know she lied, so she is not a genuine person. No one is suggesting punishing in the vast majority of cases, because the vast majority of cases do not involve clear cut lying like this case does. This is an exceptional case so trying to downplay the lying aspect is misleading.

Still not misleading.

I agree, this woman is not a genuine case but it can take a lot to persuade a genuine victim to make a complaint as it is, adding another hurdle would only make matters worse. Again, just because you have an issue with my post doesn't make it misleading

polesheep

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Still not misleading.

I agree, this woman is not a genuine case but it can take a lot to persuade a genuine victim to make a complaint as it is, adding another hurdle would only make matters worse. Again, just because you have an issue with my post doesn't make it misleading

Is this your description of 'telling the truth'?

LollipopJimmy

polesheep wrote: »

Is this your description of 'telling the truth'?

No, what I am saying is genuine victims often have to be guided carefully through the process, often they will back out of making a complaint for numerous reasons, fear of not being believed is already a big reason.

LollipopJimmy

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

No, what I am saying is genuine victims often have to be guided carefully through the process, often they will back out of making a complaint for numerous reasons, fear of not being believed is already a big reason.

Genuine men who have false accusations levelled against them are also in fear of not being believed.

There are no safeguards for them, no media campaigns and no support.

It's a dual edged sword. The ibelieveher hashtag has emboldened many to speak publicly about horrific things that happened, but it also has more than likely provoked some spiteful ****ers to ruin someone's life without fear of retribution.

A serious flaw in the system if the party proven innocent is named, and the accuser gets to retreat anonymously to the shadows without repercussions. Why was Sil Fox dragged out in the media glare? I imagine they expected it to be an open and shut case, reality distorted by the hashtag nonsense. #letsautomaticallybelievehernomatterwhat

Name the woman, let her experience one iota of the humiliation Sil Fox has had to endure. I hope he receives a considerable payout for the damage done to his reputation.

EmmetSpiceland

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

No, what I am saying is genuine victims often have to be guided carefully through the process, often they will back out of making a complaint for numerous reasons, fear of not being believed is already a big reason.

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

Higgins5473

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

However, I would be against the public shaming of his accuser, it does no good for anybody really and it could stop a genuine person reporting for fear of being punished in the same way should the case against the accused not be successful.

In the same vein it could prevent false accusers from doing something like this and ruining someone’s reputation, livelihood, relationships and their entire lives in general.

If someone has been genuinely assaulted they should have no concerns about being exposed as malicious liars, they might not get justice but they will not have their lives publicly shamed as liars. Unless of course they are and there could potentially be evidence to show as much. When you weigh it up, exposing this person seems right and fair.

What’s really awful about this story is this mans age, he will most likely spend the rest of his days dealing with a lengthy legal battle if he proceeds, not to mention the cloud hanging over his reputation which will cause a lot of further mental anguish. It really doesn’t matter that he was cleared or the case thrown out, once these type of accusations are made and out there in the ether; that’s that, you’re ruined.

Rodney Bathgate

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Still not misleading.

I agree, this woman is not a genuine case but it can take a lot to persuade a genuine victim to make a complaint as it is, adding another hurdle would only make matters worse. Again, just because you have an issue with my post doesn't make it misleading

Misleading: ‘giving the wrong idea or impression’

You are attempting to give the wrong idea or impression that this case is a typical case. You are attempting to give the wrong idea or impression that this case is the same as a he said / she said type case where there isn’t clear evidence that the alleged incident did or didn’t happen.

banie01

McGaggs wrote: »

It's ridiculous that such simple evidence wasn't seen by the DPP. And if it was it's ridiculous that they went ahead.

What would be more worrying would be if the DPP were aware that that the exculpatory evidence existed and still pressed ahead with the case.

That has happened in quite a few UK cases until a recent change in the discovery/disclosure process.

Whomever signed of on progressing this prosecution without actually undertaking a basic evidence review.
Is a moron, and deserving of the sack IMO.

It's a fairly basic run through of chain of events and any supporting evidence.

Judge gets paid, all the solicitors get paid even though I'm going to take a wild guess that the CCTV evidence was available pretty ****ing early on. But hey, let's press ahead and make some work for ourselves.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

Even with an open and shut case like this, you can be sure of a white knight to come barrelling in on his high horse.

Higgins5473

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

If none of us believe them and make those kind of remarks about abuse victims there must be thousands of posts calling the victims ‘liars’ or ‘telling lies’, or putting it down to ‘next day regret’. Use the quote function and pick out a few there, should be easy enough.

polesheep

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Not sure any of the lads on here believe that any victims are genuine, L. Next day regret and lies seem to be the “go to” excuse here.

There are lots of genuine victims... including Sil Fox.

Necro

Mod:

Emmet and Rodney, cut out the back and forth sniping. Any issues with where a thread are placed please report it. Any further of this back and forth and cards will be issued.

John Doe1

This is really shocking.

There are plenty more psychopath women out there who are going to use the whole #ibelieveher thing for their own nefarious ends.

This is why we should put our faith in the courts to get the correct verdict before accusing men of such deeds.

Varik

Perfectly happy if we never find out her name and she just get's anonymously convicted and thrown in prison ( iron mask to be safe).

But most accusers seem to never even attempt to contact the police, they just stick it up on social media. The mob rules the accused guilty and that's that. Even when there is a trial civil or otherwise the accused is still dragged through the mud even after winning. People shouting "not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent".

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A serious flaw in the system if the party proven innocent is named, and the accuser gets to retreat anonymously to the shadows without repercussions. Why was Sil Fox dragged out in the media glare? I imagine they expected it to be an open and shut case, reality distorted by the hashtag nonsense. #letsautomaticallybelievehernomatterwhat

Name the woman, let her experience one iota of the humiliation Sil Fox has had to endure. I hope he receives a considerable payout for the damage done to his reputation.

Not often I agree with you but plus 100 to that.

ollkiller

No way should she be named. If she was named and with the obligatory trashing on social media it will only stop real victims coming forward. Of course I would agree with the defendant not being named until proven guilty. That's where the problem lies.

mikhail

ollkiller wrote: »

No way should she be named. If she was named and with the obligatory trashing on social media it will only stop real victims coming forward. Of course I would agree with the defendant not being named until proven guilty. That's where the problem lies.

And what does it do to men to see that their reputation and livelihood can be damaged without consequence at any moment by some lunatic? How many of the young men who get sucked into incel culture are encouraged on that path by stories like these? The notion that there's only harm in one direction here is utter bull****.

jrosen

I dont think anyone should be named until the case is over with.

I do think where someone has made a false allegation they should face charges.