Agreed.
Sad that the financial side precluded them getting out in front of this from the start.
Maybe there is a business case to be made to the insurers about their conduct moving forward.
Moderator: Moderators
Agreed.
My response will be unpopular and maybe insensitive, and I apologise unreservedly but feel the point needs to be made.
Whatever the judge might say do you really believe that a witness' identity would be kept secret?richardb wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:25 pm I don't have in mind an unconditional admission of liability by the school.
But where individuals have reported events to the police, made statements and helped secure convictions, I believe that the school should be paying for counselling and therapy without question.
Those people without doubt are victims and not bandwagon jumpers.
Richard can answer much better, but if by witness you mean victim/complainant, then anyone who reports being a victim of a sex offence has lifelong anonymity by law, even if there are no arrests, no charge, or the accused is acquitted. The school can’t go naming people, and anyone who does faces prosecution. This is why it was so egregious of Sillett to suggest to a victim that she risked being publicly named. He either was unaware of the law, which is shocking for someone in his position, or knew the law and lied (to sweep the issue under the carpet?), even more disgraceful.sejintenej wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:27 amWhatever the judge might say do you really believe that a witness' identity would be kept secret?richardb wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:25 pm I don't have in mind an unconditional admission of liability by the school.
But where individuals have reported events to the police, made statements and helped secure convictions, I believe that the school should be paying for counselling and therapy without question.
Those people without doubt are victims and not bandwagon jumpers.
Alternatively, if the judge imposes secrecy would the police inform the school of the witness' identity.?
I can readily understand people being concerned about their future if they come forward.
Your last paragraph Stephen is absolutely correct. I'll let Richard expand.Otter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:28 amRichard can answer much better, but if by witness you mean victim/complainant, then anyone who reports being a victim of a sex offence has lifelong anonymity by law, even if there are no arrests, no charge, or the accused is acquitted. The school can’t go naming people, and anyone who does faces prosecution. This is why it was so egregious of Sillett to suggest to a victim that she risked being publicly named. He either was unaware of the law, which is shocking for someone in his position, or knew the law and lied (to sweep the issue under the carpet?), even more disgraceful.sejintenej wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:27 amWhatever the judge might say do you really believe that a witness' identity would be kept secret?richardb wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:25 pm I don't have in mind an unconditional admission of liability by the school.
But where individuals have reported events to the police, made statements and helped secure convictions, I believe that the school should be paying for counselling and therapy without question.
Those people without doubt are victims and not bandwagon jumpers.
Alternatively, if the judge imposes secrecy would the police inform the school of the witness' identity.?
I can readily understand people being concerned about their future if they come forward.
As far as I’m aware, the complainant can only be legally named if they voluntarily reveal their identity or if a judge permits it after they are later charged with something relating to fabricating their claim, as we’ve seen in the high-profile case this week.
I understand your point; there could be reasons to make anyone accused of a serious crime anonymous but ..... Worse, in some areas even the accused's poncy accent, residence, bachground could work against him/her.
There is always the risk of 'bandwagon' opportunists, however, from experience these are relatively low in these types of circumstances.Otter wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:21 amMy response will be unpopular and maybe insensitive, and I apologise unreservedly but feel the point needs to be made.
The victims of course deserve all the support from the school that they can get - financial, legal, medical, psychological.
But cases like this, involving innumerable victims, can and have seen disgusting people jumping on board for the money who in reality have nothing to do with it. It happened after 9/11 with people claiming they were there when they weren't. Look at Carl Beech earlier this week. Anyone who was at CH at the same time as any of the convicts could say in a civil claim that they were abused when they were not, in an effort to get something.
These people of course make it immeasurably worse for true victims, and cause a pervasive culture of not being sure whether to believe a complainant. Fabricated allegations are rare but do exist.
I guess this is why the school has said nothing in this regard. I am not a lawyer or an insurer and would have no idea how to proceed, but it is a sad fact of life that fraudsters will come out of the woodwork and it is in everyone's interest that only the victims are compensated and no one else. You can't just admit liability unconditionally up-front to everyone who comes forward.
FWIW, I was a geneticist in the University where DNA fingerprinting was invented, and to quote Sir Alec Jeffreys 'DNA creates associations', in that it links the person arising from that DNA to the DNA found at a location. There are various levels of sensitivity and the tests have been refined and improved over the years to provide an astonishing level of accuracy, but there are limits. Some tests are so sensitive that they are liable to cross-contamination, picking up DNA from skin or hair shed naturally or from innocent contact. Finding someone's DNA in their own home would hardly advance a case, but where a bodily fluid is found on or in a victim, or at a crime scene, and the DNA's person and the scene/victim (or victim's DNA on the suspect) are, according to the uncontested prosecution position, not otherwise connected, it makes it rather hard to maintain an alibi or other explanation for the finding, unless of course you have other evidence to indicate that even if the DNA test is accurate, it is not probative of anything.There have been cases (including death penalty cases) in the US where DNA has cemented a guilty verdict, only for it to have later been found to be incorrectly identified/contaminated/planted. DNA is not gospel.