Chris Saltrese facebook

[can it get worse]

https://www.facebook.com/ChrisSaltreseFalseAllegations

Recommended solicitor.

Also Tania Griffiths QC.

[Rights Fighter]

Chris Saltrese Solicitors Blogspot

Also Chris Saltrese Solicitors Blogspot:


http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.co.uk/

[Rights Fighter]

Blog 8th October 2013

http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.co.uk/...yet-again.html

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

BBC - looking the wrong way yet again

On Sunday 6th October I went along to the BBC studios in Salford to take part in a BBC Radio 5 Live programme

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/...1006-1500a.mp3

.....discussing the rise in the number of allegations of historical sexual abuse post-Savile. Or the “post-Savile spike” as it was rather gruesomely described.

There was a great story to be told here, or so I thought. A story of police and prosecutors, of charities and charlatans (aka personal injury lawyers) whose individual and collective moral blindness has contributed to the greatest series of miscarriages of justice in the history of the criminal justice system in this country; where hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent men have been sent to prison for vile crimes which they have not committed (for more on this see the works of the late, great Richard Webster http://www.richardwebster.net).

But, as is customary these days, the BBC fluffed its lines. It failed completely to get to grips with the real story behind the epidemic of historical abuse allegations and instead of giving listeners a Sunday morning treat it dished up the thinnest of gruels: a dismal pot pourri of pre-recorded propaganda from the usual suspects; the nice policeman saying how terribly difficult it is to investigate and prosecute theses cases (nonsense, there is no investigation required and they are a piece of cake to prosecute); the nice man from the NSPCC bleating on about the usual stuff they bleat on about (I cannot recall a word he said); and the anonymous “victim” who had the great misfortune to be abused by two choirmasters, had then gone on to join the police and had managed to unburden himself only after a course of therapy (no comment necessary).

And then there was me, an afterthought, no doubt drafted in to maintain the BBC’s love of “balance”; given a minute’s airtime to state my case only to be told by presenter AdrianGoldberg that I am in it for the money before being ushered out of the studio by the gofer. I now know how Nigel Farage must feel, the poor chap.

Had I been extended the courtesy of five minutes on the subject here’s what I would have said.

The increase in historical allegations post-Savile has very little, if anything, to do with brave “victims” summoning up the courage to report their abusers. Rather it has everything to do with complainants making false allegations (for whatever reason, but money often comes into it) safe in the belief that their stories will not be subjected to the slightest scrutiny by the police and the prosecuting authorities. For these complainants (and more especially their money-grubbing lawyers) have picked up clear signals that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are on their side and that their allegations will be gratefully received and unquestioningly believed.

Nowhere is this signal stronger than in the Metropolitan Police’s infantile report on the Savile affair itself (Giving Victims a Voice). In its breathtaking disregard for both logic and common sense the report, co-authored by the NSPCC, assumes that because the allegations against Savile were made, the offences were committed. And it goes on to solemnly declare that 214 incidents of abuse have been “formally recorded” as crimes. Nowhere in the report is there mentioned the possibility that a single one of these allegations might be false. This is not so much a retreat from scepticism as a dereliction of duty.

Yet no one at the BBC or in the mainstream press (with the notable exception of Charles Moore at the Daily Telegraph) has dared to question the report’s methods or conclusions. Rather the BBC has responded by setting up its own expensive internal investigation, which has rubber-stamped the Met’s findings, and has devised its own scheme for compensating victims (seven grades of compo available if you’re interested); and all of this paid for by the licence fee, naturally.

We now live in a country in which, like the old Soviet Union, an unsupported allegation is enough to send a man to prison; where we rejoice in the hounding and prosecution of old men (and this is for the most part about men) for uncorroborated offences that, in some instances, are alleged to have taken place before the introduction of decimal coinage, before they put a man on the moon, before England won the World Cup, before the Beatles. That we have allowed this moral panic to so consume us is a national disgrace for which we should all hang our heads in shame. And yes, it is the handiwork of the police, the lawyers and the Courts, all of whom have the blood of the innocent on their hands. But the journalists must also take their share of the responsibility: for theirs is the sin of omission. And that applies particularly to the journalists at the BBC who, although best placed to get to the truth at the heart of the Savile affair, have, as Sunday’s lamentable effort so amply demonstrates, insisted on looking the other way and in so doing have helped to send others to a living hell.

Chris Saltrese
8 October 2013

[Rights Fighter]

Blog Thursday 11th December 2014

http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.co.uk/...-first_11.html

Thursday, 11 December 2014

The Rotherham Report: verdict first, trial later?

Since the explosion of allegations about the late Jimmy Savile in 2012, we have become accustomed to a plethora of inquiry reports pronouncing guilt without the merest whiff of due process.

In a similar vein in August this year, the Rotherham Independent Inquiry into Child Exploitation came to the shocking verdict that at least 1400 children in the town had been hideously abused over 14 years in plain sight of the protective authorities with barely a prosecution to show for it.

During the past few years public awareness of the ‘grooming gangs’ has increased through a number of high-profile prosecutions, but if the claims made in the Rotherham report have substance, these are indeed the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

However at Chris Saltrese Solicitors, we have learnt to be wary of presumptive and stereotyped claims – and how they can preface a witch hunt.

With investigative expectations to the fore, too often evidence may be coaxed and confabulated to fit a pre-conceived image, especially where the events in question are long past and there may be financial incentives for complainants.

In the Rotherham report, a handful of extreme case history allegations documented are said to typify the speculative number of victims’ experiences as a whole predominantly at the hands of ‘Asians’.

In so doing, the entire the 8000 strong Pakistani –Kashmiri community in the town has been veiled in suspicion and suggestions of a cover-up, while the National Crime Agency has taken charge of investigations from the seemingly hapless South Yorkshire Police.

We have in the past written critically of the oversight by police and social workers in allowing young girls to engage in sexual activity detrimental to their welfare, while urging caution in accepting oral testimony uncritically.

Thus we make no apologies for questioning the presumptions and the soundness of the evidence-base of the Rotherham report in our newly published critique.

Furthermore we point to the hypocrisy of the child protection establishment in their support for the Gillick ruling in the 1980s which granted children sexual autonomy as if they were adults by permitting contraception and abortion services without parental notification and consent.

Little wonder therefore that some girls were easily vulnerable to persuasion as to perceived sexual freedom, aping the culture of clubbing and recreational casual sex that the adult and media world shamelessly flaunts.

While the Rotherham report clearly documents the processes that failed potential victims and their families over the years, it is far from clear how reliable and extensive the violent exploitation, trafficking and multiple perpetrator rape claims were.

Furthermore the source of much of the ‘hard core’ evidence appears to emanate from an untrained advocacy source, Risky Business.

One member of the project provided a report for a Home Office project in 2001 which appears to have been rejected in mysterious circumstances.

Perhaps even more mysteriously however, since this researcher’s original findings are held as being unjustifiably suppressed, the identity of this key player remains anonymous.

She has since the report was published given media interviews claiming that her original data was stolen (something not alleged in the report), and also given evidence anonymously to the Home Affairs Select Committee in private.

While complainants in sexual offence cases enjoy lifetime anonymity, it is not clear why a council employee responsible for gathering claims of serious criminal offences should be allowed a similar licence, particularly in the light of the fact that a succession of senior officials and councillors have been forced to stand down over the affair.


Stripped of hyperbole, the fact is we know very little of the nature and extent of the criminal activity underpinning the conclusions of the Rotherham report.



The liberal use of emotive terms such as 'grooming' and 'trafficking' can obscure rather than identify the facts given their broad definition spanning from being nice to a child and giving someone a lift to abduction and murder.

In a climate of fear, the more severe the conclusion the more likely it is that sexual abuse inquiries are guaranteed virtual immunity from critical scrutiny. 'Better safe than sorry' is the understandable overriding maxim.

But this is misconceived. A rush to presumptive judgment will do little to ensure justice, or protect future children from harm and could foster widespread injustice and avoidable harm.


However other than pointing the finger of blame, there has been little or no critical debate to be heard either in the media or political circles.

Our critique, based only on the report itself, is a small step in that direction.

[Rights Fighter]

Blog 19th February 2015

http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.co.uk/...faultvmlo.html

Thursday, 19 February 2015


The rape conundrum: should a suspect know consent – or the DPP know the law?

‘How did you know she consented?’ This is the question that Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, wants the police to put to men suspected of rape. It’s part of a new‘toolkit’ designed to increase the rate of convictions in rape trials.

The initiative is one of a wider series of measures intended to exploit the current law on rape with particular emphasis on demonstrating capacity to consent, since intoxication or mental illness or disability may vitiate apparent agreement to the extent where it’s not only ‘no’ that means no, but ‘yes’ may mean no too in the eyes of the law.

The 2003 Sexual Offences Act significantly changed the law on consent. Whereas it used to be sufficient for an accused person to rely on a belief in consent, even if this was passive acquiesance, it became necessary to demonstrate that their belief was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

In other words it moved from what a person believed, to what they ought to have believed. In legal terms this was a shift from a subjective test to a subjective one with an objective element.

At the same time, the notion of capacity became more slippery. Because if a partner was asleep, unconscious or even conscious but drunk, they might be presumed incapable of giving meaningful consent and therefore guilt could be inferred without more.

While all of this looks fine on paper, in the real world of the dizzying excitement of transitory sexual encounters, where the magic of the moment may be followed by a rude sense of alcoholic remorse, it can be very messy indeed.

Where, as is often the case, both parties have voluntarily consumed significant amounts of alcohol, is it reasonable to expect only one party to take responsibility for ensuring the other would have consented despite intoxication? And where memory lapses occur through drink, should this mean a lack of capacity can be presumed on behalf of a complainant, whereas a suspect similarly affected is presumed guilty, since he cannot rely on the notion of drunken intent?

Ms Saunders is unapologetic. From her standpoint there is a presumption of guilt the moment a complainant makes a report. That’s why she defends the use of the term ‘victim’ for ‘complainant’ and is determined that the criminal justice system as a whole should follow suit.

But with her ‘toolkits’ there is an inherent danger a complainant may be prompted into making claims about consent and capacity which fit the formula of ‘case building’ to meet the law, rather than relying on what actually did occur to the best of her memory.

In other words, it’s all too easy for case building, in such circumstances, to become case manufacture.

Such potential betrays not a respect for the law and the office which she is privileged to hold, but a profound abnegation of the responsibility of the CPS.

For despite indications to the contrary, it is not the role of the DPP or the CPS to act as witch finder general on behalf of interest groups, but to act in the interests of justice and fairness on behalf of us all, including suspects.

For the DPP, it would appear the ends justify the means as far as case building goes. But what she cannot do is change the law.

And this is where her consent question oversteps the mark. Because expecting a suspect to know a complainant consented is not, even within the current vagaries of the law, valid. What is required is reasonable belief in consent. Knowledge goes beyond this in it being what was actually the case.

There is, rightly, in the law, still an element of subjectivity enshrined in the word ‘belief’ which is, in all the circumstances, all a sexual partner can be expected to do. Anything beyond this would be a form of mind-reading and that cannot be his responsibility.

To be confronted with the question of knowledge is therefore both oppressive and illegitimate.

It would appear only to be designed to put the unwary suspect on the back foot, his being forced, hopelessly and haplessly, to prove his innocence.

It has no place in the ‘toolkit’, as indeed the DPP should know since the subjective definition of ‘reasonable belief’ is included in the CPS legal guidance which preceded her tenure.

But perhaps more worrying, is the fact that although the new measure has received copious media attention and commentary, there has been no apparent recognition hitherto that this move is illicit.

The DPP does not make the law, she follows it.

Perceived ‘political correctness’ does not give licence to legal invalidity and it is vital that critical scrutiny goes beyond the knockabout tournaments of ‘blame the bloke’ versus ‘blame the victim’.

For as George Orwell once wrote ‘English… becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.’

[Rights Fighter]

Blog 27th February 2015

http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.co.uk/...f-demonic.html

Friday, 27 February 2015


Savile abuse inquiries – a case of demonic belief possession?


‘We now know the identity of the most reviled man in the world…’ said the BBC broadcaster. On the day of the publication of the long-awaited report into Jimmy Savile at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, it might be thought to be a reference to the deceased celebrity.

In fact it was ‘Jihadi John’, who proudly parades beheadings on the internet.

However the eliding of a bloodthirsty terrorist with the posthumous reputation of Savile is not that far-fetched in view of the hyperbole that has attended his fate since the first claims became publicised back in 2012.

Beginning with the Met police and NSPCC report ‘Giving Victims a Voice’ findings have been made on the strength of the historic allegations alone.

Subsequent detailed reports intended to investigate claims tend not to go further than rudimentary checks, where available, while the allegations remain vague, replete with stereotyped notions of sexual assault.

On Radio 4’s Today programme, a former friend and employee of Saville for 40 years had the temerity to question the posthumous demonization.

Frankly, she said, she could not accept any of the allegations as true without a proper court case. She did not know what was true, but it didn’t accord with her experience of him at the time, nor many others she knew.

For the authors of the report however there are no doubts, and nor had there been.

They proceeded on the basis that all claims were true and found accordingly. There was no documentary evidence, and it seems the only complaints made at the time were seen as ‘inappropriate behaviour’ (in one case giving a 14 year old girl flowers) rather than sexual assault or worse.

As the presumption of guilt has gathered pace the authors are casually flippant about the defects in methodology, citing CPS policy and ‘sexual abuse ‘experts in support.


We learn from the report:

6.6 Some of the victims were confused about dates and on occasions a few provided inconsistent accounts. However it should be understood that this is entirely normal and recognised as such by both sexual abuse experts and the Crown Prosecution Service. In itself this is not an indication that an account is false and is a frequent feature of statements given by individuals who are reporting events from a long time ago. Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, wrote a report in March 2013 which said “… damaging myths and stereotypes which are associated with these cases. One such misplaced belief is that false allegations of rape… are rife”. Alison Levitt’s research shows that false allegations are rare and current thinking stipulates that victims should be believed unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. In the case of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital victims no such evidence existed.

6.7 The Investigation could not find clinical records for each of the patient victims as most of these had been destroyed. Personnel records for staff victims (who no longer worked at the Hospital) had also been destroyed and visitor victims left no traceable evidence behind them to show that they had ever been to the Hospital.’

All the allegations therefore are rubber-stamped as true without more.

You can see their point. Why bother to look into claims when you’ve already come to a decision?

Strangely enough though, there is no mention of psychotherapist Valerie Sinason’s claim that patients from Stoke Mandeville told her about 'satanic abuse' at the hospital.

Were these claims not submitted to the enquiry? Or were they put aside as being fanciful, undermining the credibility of other complaints?

Ms Sinason, who is a specialist in ‘multiple personality disorder’, is an ardent crusader for belief in ‘satanic abuse’ despite its doleful history as a mythical conspiracy theory.

Nevertheless her status as a former NHS psychotherapist and her publicising of claims ought, one might think, have drawn the attention of the panel to consider it in some measure.

The Stoke Mandeville report is in fact unique among the slew of new reports published in that although it has the most extensive and serious claims, and is likely to be the most influential, it affords the least effort among the reports in terms of attempts at substantiation.

Some of the other reports, while nominally more probative, made findings on the basis of alleged ‘encounters’ or potential ‘sightings’ of Savile as if not only his alleged offending is a worthy subject of damning enquiry, but his very presence.

The term ‘demonised’ is frequently an over-used cliché, but the Jimmy Savile ‘legacy’ suggests that he really has become, in secular terms, the devil incarnate.

Indeed, some of the descriptions appear to resemble sightings of a mythical incubus, rather than anything happening in space and time, which may be telling in itself.

Meanwhile in Leeds, a new report builds on the previous one (which kick-started the mortuary allegations) with fresh complaints considered at length, that were prompted by the previous report.

It seems that the Savile legacy will be a never-ending story, at least until the money dries up.

But in fact there is not a single allegation of any seriousness against Jimmy Savile that we have read about which could be said to be evidentially reliable on the basis of the evidence provided.

Claims that ‘everybody knew’ he was a sex pest or a paedophile appear to be post hoc reminiscences, possibly based on vague rumour or exaggeration, since he was certainly tactile and given to kissing ladies’ hands or arms in public.

The ‘paedophile’ rumours surrounded him for some years before his death – but again there was no reliable evidence and plenty of people who now claim ‘they knew’ were happy to hobnob with him at the time.

The fact is we don’t know the nature and extent of his alleged offending. What we do know is that there are numerous claimants seeking compensation from private and public resources. Some of these have already been sifted as unreliable using minuscule resources compared to the official reports.

Even a few dogged individual researchers on the internet have been able to find evidence to contradict claims – often through critical scrutiny of publicly available news reports and documents – which are, to coin a phrase ‘in plain sight’.

They in turn have been contacted by people who did know Savile and are bemused and sceptical.

But outside the blogs, it appears that these plaintive witnesses are given no voice by the media or the enquiries.

Of course there are many claimants, but nearly all have come forward since the broadcast of the Exposure documentary, which has been investigated as being critically flawed.

The presumption that numbers necessarily dictate truth is wrong.

Whatever the actual truth in individual cases there are numerous ways mass claims may be false.

Firstly, none of the claims are truly independent. They have come in the wake of the original claims. When it is claimed complaints were made at the time, there is no proof that this was the case, or if so, that the complaint at that time was similar to that made now.

Collective delusions and mass hysteria are well-known psychological phenomena. While they generally affect confined communities, in the age of mass and social media, they may travel across a wide community.

Anyone who met Savile, or might have, may then ‘remember’ an alleged assault, or exaggerate an innocuous event. Being told he was a very bad man, may invite radical memory reconstruction.

Then there are people who are fantasists and habitual liars. These may be a minority of claimants, but can be significant, particularly when it comes to dramatic claims.

Then there is the previous history of rumour surrounding Savile. The fact that rumours were already in circulation prior to his death, is an invitation for people to make false claims. That is the nature of rumour. Celebrity may attract this, just as claims of child incest were levelled against Marie Antoinette on the basis of her position and profligacy (and of course her alleged sexual licentiousness was the subject of numerous published pornographiclibelles).

As judges used to say, experience shows that people do make false allegations of sexual crimes.

Whether there is something particular about the subject matter that turns heads, other than being hard to refute, is an open question.

Freud thought his patients had all been sexually abused having presumed this was the case. Then he decided that women have sexual incest fantasies. But whose were they? His implanted in their minds, the women’s, or true experiences?

Perhaps a mixture, but bearing in mind the age old ideas about demonic sexual predators – the incubi – there may be something in the idea that fantasies about sexual experiences are more prevalent than might be the case in other domains.

Yet it was the Freudian heritage that concentrated modern minds on the idea of the ubiquity of sexual abuse, the supposed unique effect undermining psychological well-being and, finally, the belief that ‘memories’ of assaults can lie frozen in the mind for decades until ‘defrosted’ by a ‘trigger’ event.

The theory of ‘repressed’ and recovered memory for significant adverse experiences has no scientific standing. Yet many of the alleged Savile victims claim it was only when they saw or read about his alleged offences that they ‘remembered’.

In all cases, the prospect of significant compensation payouts without being held to account has to be seen as a significant incentive to exaggerate, lie or fantasise.

Yet for the report writers no such possibility appears to either be contemplated or to be worthy of consideration.

Given the incentives to make false allegations and the effect of the publicity surrounding the initial claims, this complete absence of scepticism is staggering, if predictable.

For as the report says, this is what the CPS and the police consider to be right in addressing sexual allegations, while constantly appealing for more people to make claims. It is true that many sexual assault victims do not report their experiences, but this is usually because they are relationship based where understandable factors may inhibit.

But as the ease with which claims such as those in Stoke Mandeville are accepted without scrutiny becomes more widely recognised – and with it the CPS and police policy to this effect – it is inevitable that yet more false allegations will be generated, to the further detriment of justice in the UK.

[Rights Fighter]

Blog 16th March 2015

http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.co.uk/...io-effect.html

Monday, 16 March 2015


CPS guidelines and the Pinocchio effect


The trial had all the hallmarks of ‘grooming’ – a gang of adults luring a vulnerable young girl into sex, drugs, prostitution and trafficking.

But last week, six weeks after it began, the juggernaut case ground to a halt.


In an unusual move, Judge James O’Mahoney ruled that the complainant’s evidence was too unreliable to be put to the jury.

While she was undoubtedly a vulnerable witness with an unhappy life history, he said her evidence was replete with lies and contradictions as against the known facts.

The seven defendants, Roma Slovaks, as was the complainant, walked free.

The newspaper report stated that the judge criticised the investigation ‘ “the police had asked leading questions, had failed to consider the girl’s “tendency to confabulate”, had failed to challenge inconsistencies in her evidence and had failed to restrict the number and length of interviews with the teenager.

‘He said there had been a serious lack of neutrality during police interviews with officers telling the girl, “I know you have told the truth”, and “I think it's awful what you’ve gone through”.’

With such manifest flaws, it might be asked how the multimillion pound case got past the Crown Prosecution Service.

But the answer is simple, it was in line with their guidelines.

For when interviewing complainants, investigators are led to expect that

• They may give inconsistent and contradictory accounts

• They may need to be repeatedly interviewed giving piecemeal accounts, sometimes saving the worst until last

• The fact of inconsistency and contradiction may be symptom of abuse and confirmatory supporting evidence

• The complainants are victims.

The danger of confabulation in such circumstances is not recognised at all. Yet it is a fundamental risk, not just in this case but in all grooming and historic cases where ‘case building’ relies heavily on a progressive narrative by complainants, and where there is a presumption of victimhood.

In multi-complainant cases the risk is greater because not only are potential complainants allowed to be told about what others are claiming, leading to the possibility of cross-contamination, but there is a greater likelihood of the case being decided by the jury where the lurid similarity of claims may prompt a jury to convict on dubious grounds.

For the fact is that the term ‘vulnerable’ when applied to witnesses who have a history of difficult and wayward behaviour, or as GMC police chief Sir Peter Fahy termed it ‘putting themselves at risk’, does not only mean they are open to sexual exploitation, but can also mean they are open to suggestion by their saviours – the police, social workers and allied multiagency services.

While it is undoubtedly true that these cases are tricky to investigate, and that serious crimes may have been committed, the CPS guidelines are in fact a rehash of the notorious‘child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome’ which fuelled the ‘satanic abuse’ daycare cases such as McMartin and a host of miscarriages of justice.

Such ‘counterintuitive’ theories, while popular within the sexual abuse industry, have noempirical basis and when used as an investigative tool may massively inflate claims, building a phantom shared narrative.

It may then become very difficult to distinguish the real from the imagined with genuine offences becoming submerged within fantasy, or even overlooked.

However, the most imminent danger is that of miscarriages of justice. For not only are the CPS guidelines a template for investigation and prosecution, but judges may now direct the jury to similar effect.

Under the rubric of ‘myth busting’ in the Crown Court specimen direction benchbook, juries can be told that (at pp361-2) inconsistencies may be a result of trauma caused by the offence, and may discount them in coming to a verdict.

These directions have been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Not only is this presumptive, since in order for the jury to consider the evidence in this way, they have to decide that the offence was committed, but it undermines the standard of proof.

Where a case depends substantially on oral testimony, the only way a jury can be sure of guilt is by examining the cogency and consistency of testimony.

Of course there will be cases where the defendant’s evidence is poor and that can support the prosecution, but in many cases all that may be possible for the defendant to give is a flat denial, with nothing other than the complainant’s evidence to rely on.

If a complainant’s evidence is seriously inconsistent, then the only fair and rational verdict is to acquit.

Of course it does not mean that a complainant is necessarily lying or mistaken about the offence, but insofar as the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard of proof is to be sure of guilt, then acquittal is the only safe conclusion.

With the police and CPS falling over themselves in conducting mass investigations into CSE, and other historic inquiries, Judge O’Mahoney’s intervention is as timely as it is exceptional.

While there are still judges who believe in the principle of the ascendancy of cogency and consistency in evidence, it has been discarded by the CPS in this field, and compromised by the Judicial Studies Board.

The safeguards to the integrity of justice in England and Wales have not only been eroded, but are hanging by a thread.

[edinashed]

Perhaps avoid liking or friending a solicitor of this kind if you value your anonymity.

[Rights Fighter]

What on earth do you mean by "a solicitor of this kind?"

[edinashed]

What on earth do you mean by "a solicitor of this kind?"

It wasnt meant pejoratively, my apologies. What i meant is that many of us who are facing false allegations may not want such allegations becoming public i.e through Facebook etc.

[Rights Fighter]

That's ok then!

He's arguably one of the best!

It's ususally family members who like or join and of course FB privacy settings can be tweaked so only certain people can see your likes and/or groups/friends.......

[edinashed]

That's ok then!

He's arguably one of the best!

It's ususally family members who like or join and of course FB privacy settings can be tweaked so only certain people can see your likes and/or groups/friends.......

Its worth to bear in mind that quite often likes etc. can be seen on Facebook and its extremely easy for me to google chris saltrese false alegations and srart jumping to conclusions.

[Rights Fighter]

As I said privacy settings can prevent outsiders seeing a person's 'likes's.

Plus people will like/follow regardless. They know the 'risks' and why would you want to Google the page anyway if you have no interest? People don't have to openly 'like' a page to keep updated with it.

Plus the blogs are of interest to many, even if they are not to you....

[Rights Fighter]

I've checked the page on another profile that is not connected to to the Chris Saltrese page. The only "likes" I can see are when people physically "like" certain posts. I cannot see who has actually "liked" the page itself.

I know that on my personal profile I can set my privacy settings so that my pages and groups that I have "liked" or joined can remain invisible to whoever I want them to be.

But thanks for the thought as some people may not have realised that "liking" posts on a page will show that "like" publicly, should anybody take the trouble to search.

I hope the blogs are interesting to some if not all members on here!

[jittery]

Fascinating

I've checked the page on another profile that is not connected to to the Chris Saltrese page. The only "likes" I can see are when people physically "like" certain posts. I cannot see who has actually "liked" the page itself.

I know that on my personal profile I can set my privacy settings so that my pages and groups that I have "liked" or joined can remain invisible to whoever I want them to be.

But thanks for the thought as some people may not have realised that "liking" posts on a page will show that "like" publicly, should anybody take the trouble to search.

I hope the blogs are interesting to some if not all members on here!

I think they're fascinating rights finder, if I come through this in one piece I want to be a campaigner for more rights for those accused of rape. A movement has started in Canada, of course they're all (including female members) branded mysogenists. But we need to start something vocal and public, the article's quite right. Justice is taking a sideline here : how the hell is a person supposed to know whether yes or compliance in fact means no? The whole concept is not only ludicrous, but I would question that woman's ability to hold that position if that's how her mind is working.