Originally Posted by Puffing Billy (Post 697291)

What should happen now is to have HER name and photo published.

Originally Posted by flashy (Post 696503)

there was a case similar to this in clayton back in 1995, a certain someone ( i wont name her, she's a slapper) accused someone i know, of rape, it turned out, he didnt rape her, they went to have sex and she thought her boyfriend might see her, so she cried rape, it was the second time she'd done it, the first time she had gone with a bloke and was wearing a dress that she had borrowed off a friend, the dress ripped in the process and she cried rape because she didnt want to take the blame for the dress ripping

the bloke that i know spent 4 months behind bars awaiting sentence...he was named and shamed for no reason and she kept her anonimity

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 697254)

It only took 10 minutes really the other 35 they were having a brew to make it look better. I can't, for the life in me, understand why the CPS allowed this case anyway near a court room, how could there be even the smallest chance of a conviction when the accuser didn't know what date it was, never mind that she was forced to have sex. The fact that she woke up with this guy still in bed next to her spoke volumes, if he had raped her he'd have been away long before she came round from her drunken stupor. The only losers in all this is are the tax payer and the poor sod who's had is name dragged through the mud for no good reason, just to placate the conscience of some drunk woman who can't control her obviously out of control drinking problem. The sooner the law is change, to withhold the name of a suspect until he's found guilty, the better, after all its still the law of the land that your innocent until proved guilty, but not for men in rape cases, it stinks and does nothing to help genuine rape victims

Originally Posted by Ossy Warrior (Post 699794)

don't the name the bloke in case he has raped or tried to before and the woman has been too scared to come forward? but i do think they should withhold naming him till after he is found guilty and then if anyone comes forward they can try him then.

Originally Posted by wadey (Post 699174)

But during cross-examination she was shown footage Mr Taylor had taken on his mobile phone during the encounter on September 26, 2008."
London Daily Mail

Originally Posted by Ossywarrior (Post 699793)

i think i know the bloke, moved away afterwards if i remember rightly

Originally Posted by flashy (Post 700064)

no flip, its not the one you are thinking of

Originally Posted by steeljack (Post 700211)

bit of a wander , but it strikes me as odd that the woman who was raped by the chap who later won the lottery had her identity protected at the time , but now that there my be a few £s going around there is no problem with her name being in the media . :confused: :confused: