Keir Starmer's "victim's law" has undermined the requirement for a criminal standard of proof to convict

We need to reintroduce robust scepticism into the investigation of historical sexual abuse, writes @LukeSGittos1986 http://t.co/puNiqZJYIH

— spiked (@spikedonline) October 12, 2015

There is an easy way to solve this problem.

All complainants should satisfy the condition of being able to stand up in court and satisfying the criminal burden of proof.

The civil balance of probability is 50+%.

The criminal standard of proof is 75+%.

If you have a complaint ask yourself these questions:

1. Were there any witnesses or is it uncorroborated testimony?

2. Are they still alive?

4. Can you get hold of them?

5. Are they of good character?

6. Are they credible witnesses?

7. Might they have an axe to grind with the person who are thinking of accusing?

8. If there were no witnesses and your testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone else, do you have any other evidence against the person you considering accusing?

If your answer to 7 is YES and NO to all the other questions FORGET IT.

 If you still go ahead you should be done for wasting police time.

Policemen who proceed with this kind of dodgy evidence should be found guilty of malicious prosecution.

DPPs Keir Starmer and Alison Saunders should be forced to apologise for causing so much injustice by diluting the requirement of the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt to balance of probability in sexual assault cases.

Alison Saunders should resign for allowing this nonsense to carry on under her watch and immediately review Rolf Harris's case.

Keir Starmer should be named and shamed for his "victim's law" which started all this nonsense because it undermined the principle of the criminal standard of of guilt beyond reasonable doubt which has resulted in so many probable miscarriages of justice.  Keir Starmer heads Labour's victim treatment review 

MY rules for reporting sexual offences: uncorroborated testimony inadmissible and strict operation of limitation period

I would make it a rule that UNCORROBORATED testimony is never admissible, no matter how many complainants there are.

This means if it is just one person's word against another, forget it, unless the alleged offence was reported within 4 weeks of the commission of the alleged offence to the police.

I think 4 weeks is time enough. If it was really serious you would report it immediately without passing go and without collecting £200. If you took 4 weeks to think about it and then decided not to, then you weren't obviously that bothered about it.

If you are out of time then it is too bad and you have to just get on with your life: this has the advantage of helping the victim achieve closure. If you are really that bothered about it, you can do stuff to the perpetrator for revenge and take your chances with the law if what you do to the perpetrator breaks the law.

Or you may just end up like Frances Andrade.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-person-most-responsible-for-death.html

Extensions are only permitted if you were kidnapped, imprisoned and kept as a sex slave, obviously. Then time would start to run the moment you were in a position to report the sexual abuse you suffered.

If the victim is a child then time runs from the time the parent/guardian/carer knew of the alleged abuse.

I think that is nice and clear, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law

http://www.richardwebster.net/similarfactevidence.html

What about the MPaedophile scandal, you scream?

These rules would also apply to MPaedophiles. The paper trail should be quite easy to follow. They will choose who they will throw to the wolves in the next 10 weeks and the "real" findings will not be made public till after the next General Election according to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-announces-details-of-independent-inquiry-into-paedophile-network-claims-9590545.html

It was perhaps a delicious revenge for Dickens who was by all accounts a bit of a clown http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/07/geoffrey-dickens-mp-campaign-child-abuse-taken-seriously to have given it to Brittan himself who is said to have been implicated at the link that is now removed from http://4bitnews.com/uk/explosive-corrosive-and-breathtaking-the-biggest-scandal-in-british-history. He may have been implicitly saying "I know it was you, and you will try to cover it up, but you will get found out, maybe not even until after I am dead, but you will get found out, and a tsunami of shit will hit you and those who helped you cover it up, Anyway, here it is. Do what you like with it."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680060/Tebbit-piles-pressure-Brittan-VIP-abusers-Tory-grandee-joins-chorus-demanding-explanation-missing-dossier-detailing-Westminster-paedophile-ring.html

An unsuccessful attempt to explain to a pleb the burden of proof

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts

Facebook friend
Poor Rolf.


Claire Khaw
You wouldn't like to be his daughter and watch your inheritance being swallowed up by greedy malicious lying sluts.

Former Facebook Friend
You lot for real? HE IS GUILTY AS HELL!

Claire Khaw
Is he?

At the most he is guilty only on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof.

But that is not the criminal standard of proof, is it?

Guilty on the balance of probabilities can be expressed numerically as any number over 50 in 100.

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt should perhaps be expressed numerically as any number over 75 in 100.

Do you really think the jury understood the difference?

I rather doubt it was even put to them, and if it had been most layman are not capable of such nuanced thinking.

Most people prefer to think he is guilty just to sleep easy at night.

I am saying it should never have come to trial.

I am saying it is a LOGICAL error. A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

1 x 0 = 0

999,999 x 0 = 0

Even if there are many accusations, that in itself does not amount to evidence of the veracity of those accusations.

Probably, if you tried all those accusations SEPARATELY, they would not amount to proof BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If they fail individually, then they cannot be bundled up together. The law used to give the accused such protection, but no longer. Because of this paedo hysteria, it was adjudged "compassionate" to make it easier for the complainant to succeed, presumably because the victim could only be an alpha male that the matriarchy wanted to be revenged upon.

The floodgates of witch-hunting have been opened. Who else will be next? Rupert Murdoch?

http://www.barristermagazine.com/article-listing/current-issue/the-cult-of-victimhood-and-the-limits-of-the-law-part-1.html

Facebook Friend
"A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt." That's right. Has Rolf been convicted of actual rape? If not then surely the judge must give him a non-custodial sentence - he's 84 for crying out loud.

Former Facebook Friend
No he never raped anybody, but he touched them in intimate places? hes been noted for doing this for decades? He is a dirty old man. Id say 12 month jail myself, and a big fine, to compensate the girls.

Claire Khaw
I am saying that logically none of the accusations made against him could amount to proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is just his accusers' word against his.

If you are happy for any man with a bit of fame and wealth to be found guilty on the word of an immoral attention-seeking woman then you are entitled to your preference, but I prefer a different kind of society.

If you were his son you wouldn't like to have these immoral attention-seeking sluts seizing your inheritance and you would definitely be taking a different tone.

Former Facebook Friend
He was convicted by a Jury for god sake? The evidence was over whelming? The man is a sex pest!

Guilty on ALL charges too! You must be the only person in Britain who thinks he is innocent! Get real!

Claire Khaw
I am saying that the UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY of attention-seeking sluts who have messed up their lives is not evidence of his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Are you aware of the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof?

Which do you think is higher?

Former Facebook Friend
His daughters friend was only 13 FFS! He groomed her for ages them Molested her! Get lost madam, your off your head!

Claire Khaw
Are you aware of the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof?

Which do you think is higher?

Do you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY?

Former Facebook Friend
I like rest of Britain feel cheated, Because I enjoyed this mans talent as a child.

Claire Khaw
It is a shame most people really cannot get what I am saying, or don't think it matters.

Former Facebook Friend
I know little of the Law? But I know that a JURY unaminously convicted Harris! Hes as guilty as hell! Hes been know as "Occtopus Harris in Australia for decades? Get real Clair?

Claire Khaw
Do you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY?

You don't know and you don't care?

Former Facebook Friend
Yeah!

Claire Khaw
Plebs don't care and cannot be made to understand these things, I guess.

Former Facebook Friend
And im not spending all nite talking to you about a bloody Paedo!

Claire Khaw 
I am not talking about Harris, I am asking if you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY. You are too lazy to even look it up.

Former Facebook Friend
Don't know which third World shithole you come from, but in ENGLAND we have a Jury system a thousand years old! IT WORKS!

Claire Khaw
I am not saying we should abolish the jury system.

Former Facebook Friend
YAWN!

Claire Khaw 
If you don't know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY, just say so. Ignorant and arrogant, eh?

Former Facebook Friend
Claire! HARRIS convicted himself out of his own mouth? He wrote to his daughters friends Father in 1998, begging forgivness for molesting the child for godsake? Im a man who hates injustice too? That's why im a Nationalist? But Harris is guilty as hell!

I know what it is you argumentive asshol! NOW F-OFF!

Claire Khaw 
Yeah, he said he only had sex with her when she was over the age of consent.

Do you think you might die if you suddenly discovered what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY? You seem to want to avoid even discussing it. It is a very English concept, I do assure you.

You might even learn something of your legal traditions if you asked yourself why I am going on about UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY.

I am not even saying Harris is definitely not guilty. In fact, I am saying he is probably guilty ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

But, hey, did you know that to be convicted of a CRIMINAL OFFENCE in this country, your legal tradition requires that you be found guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT?

It is such a shame that with plebs you cannot even discuss ideas with them without them getting upset with you.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts