The latest on Alan Jones: Nine men come forward with allegations

[@GTS100V]

"Bent to Power"?? Perhaps, a bad choice of words!

[@a7128]

his a legend in my eyes

[@gustaaf1892]

Do you think the Catholic paedophile priests that were eventually exposed are legends too?

[@gustaaf1892]

Did you also consider the convicted Catholic priests to be legends? Jones and that lot have a lot in common.

[@a7128]

@@gustaaf1892 Jones is only being persecuted because his an openly gay man. If he was straight this would all be swept under the carpet. The Freemasons are out to get him

[@vernongrant3596]

Jones didn't pick his targets very well.

[@gustaaf1892]

He thought was untouchable and he was for a long time. He's got friends in the highest of places. The nine that have come forward probably only represent a small percentage of the total number of his victims, so there might still be many more who will now have more confidence to come forward.

[@jacktupp1427]

I get your point david. Further, the high court has held that, "statements made outside the proximity of pressure should hold little weight". What is the proximity of pressure? After 4 days, the strength of a persons recollections diminishes. After 7 days they should be taken as lacking weight / accuracy. Which supports yours and many others view. So why is it these types of crimes do not have a statute of limitations? Also, it only takes 1 bitter and twisted falsehood manipulator to send innocent people to gaol! Only if there was a shaw proof way to tell if someone is a falsehood giver! 🤔 If I were on Jury duty in such a case, of ( he said she/he said), in the absence of further evidence = not guilty. Not established beyond reasonable doubt. What is the definition of reasonable. That is a "Resonable person acting reasonably".

[@craig3916]

utter drivel no life experience or cognitive capacity to analyse and draw conclusions seems well in evidence here fail

[@gustaaf1892]

Multiple allegations by different people over a prolonged period of time will help jurors to get past reasonable doubt. The trauma of a sexual assault is likely to be seared into a victim's memory and they would likely to be able to accurately recall specific details unless they have trained their brain to forget it, in which case they are less likely to now come forward. I'll be surprised if the number of victims to come forward didn't grow significantly from the current nine.

[@jacktupp1427]

​@@gustaaf1892 thanks scoop, but you completely missed the point/s made!

[@gustaaf1892]

@@jacktupp1427 There are hordes of victims out there (many of whom haven't come forward yet) who have a very vivid recollection of the crime they were subjected to by someone who abused their position of power. There is no collusion between the accusers, so stop pretending that the weight of all the evidence from many victims can't meet the beyond reasonable doubt threshold. I didn't miss your points at all, but it appears you missed mine. The Crown wouldn't be proceeding unless they had a very strong case against that vile little bully. It is just a shame it didn't happen many decades ago. If you had it your way no case would be brought after a very short period of a crime against a person having taken place. Are you a Jones apologist?

[@jacktupp1427]

​@@gustaaf1892 again you have failed to understand my points. I have not missed your points as they pertain to a particular matter and I don't need a lecture on how the justice system tends to go around, I know it all to well! Further, who are these "hoards" do know of each of them? This is a liking to blokes talking 💩 in the pub. Do both of us a favour and re-read what I wrote several times if it takes that, particular the part about a single person, "in the absence of further evidence"!

[@robertcameron2808]

Allan looks very old and very ill looked completely lost all charges should be dropped a case of the tall poppy.

[@stephenagnew670]

Ahh you for real all charges dropped fuck that tall poppy syndrome he's a creep whose been protected by rich bastards for years obviously put him away another hey dad Rolfe etc disgusting

[@davidmolesworth583]

Any one making claims of sexual assault a long time after the supposed event occurred should be dismissed - deliberately delaying making the complaint removes any possibility of forensic evidence being obtained and valid corroborating evidence being found. There are so many ways the human memory changes with time let alone the scope for malicious claims that make time from the supposed event a critical factor. Unproven claims i.e. no conviction should also carry ramifications for the complainant to prevent this being a tool for vindictive purposes.

[@craig3916]

protesting singularly passionately on one side of this alleged vile criminal conduct, with no concept, care or understanding of the real dispicable cirumenstance, coercion fear n trauma inflicted to people that they cannot come fwd in short order. implies a bias in favour of powerful devious perpetrators or at least approval n accepting covering up these crimes is preferred to finding n punishing the assaulter, just because its not simple n straight forward, shameful way to treat victims

[@gustaaf1892]

So the rich and the powerful would essentially be able to get away with everything by your standards. A sexual assault is something that is likely to be seared into a victim's memory. Jones is a bully of the highest order and he would have ensured that his victims were aware of his power and influence and the personal cost to the victim if they tried to seek justice. Plenty of yet unproven accounts have emerged of kids at the Kings school and some that were involved in the school boys rugby team he was coaching having been assaulted. Those kids would have felt totally powerless and embarrassed to come forward at that time. A "he said, she said" scenario is difficult to prove if it is a singular claim, but when there are many it becomes a totally different proposition, particularly when collusion is highly unlikely to have occurred. The stories about Jones have been doing the rounds for about 40 years, but he was a protected species. Unfortunately it took until he was 83 years old before he was finally exposed for the whole of the country to gain an insight into what this man was all about. What will likely come out through the legal proceedings is the immense damage he has done to his victims. Some of his victims may not even be alive to put their case because of what he has done to them.

[@davidmolesworth583]

@@gustaaf1892 Rich and powerful has nothing to do with it - claims made promptly after an assault provide the best chance of gathering forensic and corroborating testimony/evidence. Forensic evidence doesn't know whether the accused is rich, powerful, or anything else. Multiple claims is not a basis for justifying the validity of a claim, as claims can be made for potential financial gain that can come from a civil suit that follows a successful criminal suit, or when claims are made for purely vindictive reasons - for some the end game is purely to damage the accused's reputation. The best way to get to the truth is for claims to be made in a timely manner so that both sides, and the police have the opportunity to gather forensic evidence and accurate corroborating evidence. The human memory after extended periods is fallible and should not be relied on for convictions based on individual he said-she said complaints. The George Pell case is a classic example of the dangers of prosecuting based on claims from a long time ago with no corroborating evidence - found guilty in the first trial and on appeal and then not guilty 8-0 in the high court. Our system of justice is normally based on the presumption of innocence and not on innuendos and unproven claims - there are a lot of people that would like see Alan Jones convicted of something/anything regardless of the facts just as was the case with George Pell - just look at the witch hunt prosecuted by the ABC on this case. Many prominent examples of this - Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh, George Pell,