men 'me to' ?

I meant five feet tall not four

Again not true , I did not use the the tower, I spoke of Mansfield, no matter where he didn't know how an equity worked , just that he didn't know and his right hand man had to speak for him.

How can I twist the comment about being four foot tall when I haven’t got a clue what it means? Maybe if your posts were clearer and did not contain false information they wouldn’t be so open to criticism or twisting as you call it - was I wrong about the police in Bristol? No I wasn’t - you were - you lied

Delete blame

I won’t blame bloody back off - you never have an understanding word to say about victims of sexual abuse, you made a cheap shot at me involving GT, you made an incomprehensible comment about four foot- WTF are you talking about ?

Not all who say they abused are lying and I have never said this. Long before you starting posting in the name you use now , in fact several years ago I said in a thread a friend of mine who had been a priest in my church , ran a church youth group my young daughters attended and who after a few years had moved away to have his own pariah had been arrested and sent to prison for abusing boys. No defence from me , I was saddened because I liked him but no way could I defend what he had done.

Why don't you just back off please, you twist every thing I post. You dislike me, I dislike you, leave it at that.

WTF are you talking about ab with your four foot tall ? And I couldn’t give a flying fig about your last post - what don’t you just say that as far as you are concerned all victims of sexual abuse are liars - especially of course all those abused by ‘Christians. ’

In 2007 a head teacher in Wales killed himself when accused of abusing boys. Today the council said it had paid out £140,000 to eight men. Later today four men said they too had been abused and would seek legal advice. Wonder after all the publicity at the time what jogged their memories today

Are you about four foot tall maryeliza?

I notice you didn’t have any answers to my questions though - well what a surprise.

Oh ab how absolutely pathetic, childish, unfunny your post is - wtf? And making your post part of a dig at GT - oh i forgot, you are a Christian. You should be bloody well ashamed of yourself.

Gosh were you the right hand man who had to advise Mansfield at the start of the tower enquiry when he got confused maryeliza?

Re anonymity - can someone explain why a charged rapists should have anonymity and not for example someone who has been charged with mugging a 80 year old, or cruelty to a puppy? And how do you feel about the fact that John Warboys conviction was only secured by going public and other women coming forward before his being charged and certainly before conviction. As for the QCs opinion - i regularly work with barristers (QCs and others) and the general rule is put three of them in a room together and you'll get at least 5 opinions.

It is a travesty Anniebach and sadly this is not the first nor will it be the last case of it's kind.

I don't think your point is lost on many that whether it be male or female it is worth remembering both sexes can fall victim to being tainted by being judged before trial or being named . Both sexes can lie and deceive .

We all know of the political, celebrity cases that have been highlighted and found wanting (to be polite) then there was the recent case of Jemma Beale.

As for a poster saying "If you want real injustice -". I would say this, it is fair to say on the evidence Liam Allen was a case of real injustice too and lucky not to have served time but he must have gone through hell .

There's a QC arguing in a letter to the Times today for defendants to be allowed anonymity at least until conviction in such cases as well as the accusers. Accusers of serious assaults should of course be listened to and their accusations thoroughly investigated but this case shows that just blindly believing them is a recipe for injustice.

I’ve read exactly the same Baggs but that’s all it is at the moment - selected texts with no context. I know why he was on bail for two years - it was the discs with the downloaded messages that they had decided weren’t relevant/ too personal ( depending on what paper you read) and so marked as not for disclosure. The prosecuting barrister did not throw the case out only a judge can do that, he offered no evidence ( which is barrister speak for we haven’t got a hope in hell given what we know now). It’s a shocking case of police and CPS sheer incompetence which has caused much suffering to the young man and his family. If you want real injustice I give you the Bham 6, the Guildford 4, Stefan Kiszko all of whom rotted in jail for years and all of the cases involved to a greater or lesser degree evidence undisclosed to the defence and police corruption and lying.

The article I read about it this morning quoted one of her texts and referred to some others which made it perfectly clear that the sex they had was not against her will. And yet she apparently told police he raped her.

The reason the young man has been on bail for two years is because the police would not release her phone with evidence that destroyed the case against him. In the end it was the prosecuting barrister who threw the case out after insisting on seeing her phone messages.

I understand that the young man's phone was lost or that would have proved his innocence.

It is a shocking case of injustice.

Weinstein and Spacey have not denied all the allegations - they may not be guilty of everything but they are not themselves saying they are innocent of everything either. Savile of course is a different matter in he’s dead but no one seems to argue that he was innocent.

Baggs we don’t know yet the full facts of the case against the woman. The texts provided enough for the case to be dropped but at the moment we don’t know the context or the content of all the relevant texts. Has she given evidence already? In that case if she repeated the allegations under oath it would be perjury IF they can be shown to be lies. Or has she ‘just’ wasted police time in accusing him? I’m not saying FOR ONE MINUTE that he did rape her OR that she is lying. The rules of evidence and how that works in the CJS are extremely complex. Cases are frequently dropped on the ‘realistic prospect’ test but that is not equal to the arrested/accused person being innocent. These are general points I’m making that should be considered.

Agree Annie this case was awful, poor young man.

So should their names have been kept out of the media?

Savile was never tried, Weinstein has not been tried, Spacey has not been tried .

A difficult balance, isn't it? In this particular instance, this young man was shamefully served by the authorities. However in the case of Savile, Weinstein, Spacey et al, naming (and shaming) has brought out people who might never have come forward had they not realised they weren't the only ones.

And the police are the bloody law , they keep getting away with destroying people's lives and this is so wrong. No officer will be charged, just as at hillsborough their little note books will all say the same.

Yes, the case of Liam Allan is outrageous. I think the woman who falsely accused him should be charged with a criminal offence. She was not a victim but she and police incompetence made him one.

Agree with you, Anniebach.