Name and Shame false abuse accusers?

uberwolf

Was being told the story of a recently acquitted abuse defendant last night and it got me thinking.

The story goes. And this may be libelous?!? so I'm gonna report my own post to have a mod check.

Priest owned/lived in house. His neighbours had used part of his land for a number of years with his implied permission (no complaints) as a drive way or play area for kids. He noticed then that they had applied for planning permission to build a house on the land he owned. He approached them to say that the land was his and they couldn't build a house on it for that reason.
Their response wasn't of embarassment. They allegedley told him that if he didn't F*** off that they would approach the Guards and accuse him of abusing their daughter. He didn't buckle to the pressure and refused. Calling their bluff. But they reported him for the abuse.

It went to trial as you'd imagine and all counts were thrown out. At the time their were paedo priest headlines naming him and everything. His acquittal was met with a cursory court note in one paper. The background to the accusation really riled me. In such a case where the accusation is found to be false - not even unproven but downright false - should the accuser be named. Perjury of court, wasting Garda time and runing a man shouldn't be done. Should his accuser face the same vilification he did?

meditraitor

Name them and jail them, simple as that. scum

seamus

I think so. But it's not as interesting. It wouldn't sell papers. Let's not forget that most journos are scum. The ones who report on day-to-day news couldn't give a **** about the stories, all they see is praise and euro signs. The editors are no better.

Putting their names on the front page wont help shift units. Putting a priests name for child abuse will. What's worse is that people are morons, and they're happy to be shovel fed this ****e.

So I think this would be brilliant, but good luck finding a paper that'll do it.

Boggle

Is this not a crime? To falsely and deliberately accuse someone of something like this they should be facing fail time themselves. In the very least the priest should sue them for every penny they ever will posess...

The Corinthian

uberwolf wrote:

Was being told the story of a recently acquitted abuse defendant last night and it got me thinking.

With the usual outlets for fraudulent claims drying up rapidly under recent legislation, it was really inevitable that this would become the next cash cow - my offices are near the Liberties in Dublin; you should see how many people are out on crutches or with neck braces around here.

The story goes. And this may be libelous?!? so I'm gonna report my own post to have a mod check.

If you are stating provable facts, then it is not libelous. Going beyond that may be, but calling them scum, for example, is most likely what is called ‘fair comment’.

uberwolf

The Corinthian wrote:

If you are stating provable facts

I'm not in a position to verify these 'facts'. they are merely the story according to a family friend of the priest in question - hence my concern.

My question remains. But I thought context would be helpful

Zulu

Force media outlet that publish the story to spend the same amount of airtime/media coverage/artical lenght on the story of clearing the accused.
For example the sun prints 1/2 of page 4 on the stroy villifying him, and is legally obliged to to print 1/2 of page 4 on a story clearing him good name.

The accussor would be covered under lible law - wouldn't they?

simu

uberwolf wrote:

I'm not in a position to verify these 'facts'. they are merely the story according to a family friend of the priest in question - hence my concern.

My question remains. But I thought context would be helpful

Well, you're not giving geographical info or names so I don't see a problem. It could be an urban myth for all boards readers know.

As for getting the tabloids to cover stories like this - all it takes is a bit of imagination. Create the characters of the plotting parents bursting with greed willing to give their kids the reputation of having been molested all to take advantage of a kind, fragile old priest famed for his charity work and donations.

The Corinthian

uberwolf wrote:

My question remains. But I thought context would be helpful

You never identified anyone directly or indirectly, thus no one was libeled.

Zulu wrote:

The accussor would be covered under lible law - wouldn't they?

Almost certainly.

simu wrote:

Well, you're not giving geographical info or names so I don't see a problem. It could be an urban myth for all boards readers know.

Good point. This entire thread is presently nothing more than hearsay.

As for getting the tabloids to cover stories like this - all it takes is a bit of imagination. Create the characters of the plotting parents bursting with greed willing to give their kids the reputation of having been molested all to take advantage of a kind, fragile old priest famed for his charity work and donations.

Your ideas intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

sceptre

simu wrote:

Well, you're not giving geographical info or names so I don't see a problem.

Neither do I. It's a case with the major details removed as an intro to a larger question. I've no problem with such a thread, in fact it's a good question to ask.

chewy

i wouldnt see as a major problem but i woudl like to see it prosecuted, but then if a genuine person complains and then looses the case and then is prosecuted for lying...?

when I watch the blanket coverage on the Cork boy this eve I can't help thinking the Mr T power Stop the paedophiles will be running for the next election down there... ?

Poker_Peter

Another case that springs to mind in respect of this issue of false claims is what happened in Colorado a few years ago in the case of the murder of the very young girl Jonbenet Ramsey. The police tried to get the courts to destroy evidence indicating that the parents were innocent and that an intruder had killed her, and that was stopped, but even though a Grand Jury found there was not sufficient evidence to put the parents on trial, their lives are destroyed because they can't get a job, and to pay for cancer treatment they may have to sell their house.

Those in the media who behave in the "guilty until proven innocent" spirit really have a lot to answer for. I propose a new law banning the naming of suspects unless they are found guilty, or are suspected of terrorism. That should avoid innocent people's reputations being destroyed by greedy press-barons.

The Corinthian

chewy wrote:

i wouldnt see as a major problem but i woudl like to see it prosecuted, but then if a genuine person complains and then looses the case and then is prosecuted for lying...?

Again, as with the original case, there would have to be sufficient evidence to prosecute them in the first place.

Poker_Peter wrote:

Those in the media who behave in the "guilty until proven innocent" spirit really have a lot to answer for. I propose a new law banning the naming of suspects unless they are found guilty, or are suspected of terrorism. That should avoid innocent people's reputations being destroyed by greedy press-barons.

Such a law already exists, AFAIK. As for the media, it’s easy to blame them and forget that it is our demand that fuels them in the first place.

seamus

Poker_Peter wrote:

Those in the media who behave in the "guilty until proven innocent" spirit really have a lot to answer for. I propose a new law banning the naming of suspects unless they are found guilty, or are suspected of terrorism. That should avoid innocent people's reputations being destroyed by greedy press-barons.

The ideal solution is to ban the media from the courts. This gives us a problem though, in that the media serves a useful purpose in displaying the transparency of the law. If everything was done "behind closed doors" as it were, confidence in the justice system would plummett.

I'd prefer to see a ban on all reporting of trials in progress. Allow the media full access to the courts with cameras and recording equipment but ban them from reporting on it until a verdict has been reached.

In theory, reporting on a trial in progress shouldn't make a difference - the data presented, and the eventual verdict should speak its own volumes.
But the media, the British media in particular, take their own viewpoint, and persist with that, despite the evidence. They even omit or include certain things said in the court to continue their own spin on it.

The Maxine Carr incident is a perfect example of how manipulated reporting can change the meaning of a conviction.

ferdi

if your gonna name n' shame abusers its only fair that the same is done to people who lie about it.