"The problem with such matters is that the allegation has started to assume a substitute force of conviction. It has become sufficient for individuals to lose their positions because allegations, untested by the wearing rigour of cross-examination and investigation, have assumed the force of de facto law."

Professor Daphne Patai, actually wrote about this happening around the time she published Heterophobia.

If I recall correctly world leaders would be judged not on their leadership and abilities, but on their private lives and sexual behaviour.

quotes from Daphne Patai

quote/
Despite Peggy Noonan’s current views, he said/she said situations are notoriously difficult to disentangle, especially when much time has elapsed between the event and its reporting. Abandoning the presumption of innocence because women “must be believed” is a dangerous step, but sufficiently commonplace these days that it’s not surprising to see some of those accused grovel, apologize publicly even while claiming to have intended no harm, declare their readiness to undergo sensitivity and harassment training, enter rehab or counseling, and otherwise attempt to redeem themselves via excuses intermingled with abject mea culpas.

The Blurring of ‘Sexual Assault’

To make matters worse, the ever-expanding allegations against prominent men display the indiscriminate current use of the term “sexual assault.” This is a rhetorical move designed to efface distinctions between highly disparate acts, and it follows on the well-established tradition in the sexual harassment literature of including everything “unwanted,” from a look or “elevator eyes,” to a leer, a phrase, a joke, an invitation, a touch, a grab, and even rape.

unquote/

It happened years ago, the victims should have gotten over it! Apparently fits Binroy's peculiar sense of natural justice?

It was "normal" consensual sex between consenting couples wasn't it?

Even if like alleged in the Crosby files, the victims were allegedly sedated with prescription medicine?

There's only one way to end this once and for all! That is with space age lie detection! Not the usual badgering of vulnerable traumatised witness as proposed by the totally indifferent prosecutorial author?

Whose apparent calloused indifference toward the victims, might be matched in Nazi death camps?

Ask the victims if they want their evidence tested by unbeatable space age lie detection and all bogus claims will disappear, where that occurs?

Perjury charges and real jail time should follow, along with suitable compensation!

However if they don't fail the test, which can be deployed completely covertly! And by their legal counsel, who could find themselves the liable party, if compensation is awarded?

Conversely, if the alleged perpetrator fails to convince the court that the claim is without foundation and that he/she failed the aforementioned space age unbeatable lie detection test? Their "offended" reputation ought not protect them!

Currently justice would seem to be the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful rather than the victims they've preyed on and even now, without a single shred of remorse!

Let the full facts be known and published! And then let the chips fall where they may!

The only thing that matters here is the truth rather than as completely consumes the legal profession! Winning!

And wouldn't a compulsory unbeatable lie detection test make a train wreck out of that business as usual, "legal profession" operational method?

No wonder this author is back here arguing the same defective case thoroughly done to death over the weekend?

Simply put, badgering already traumatised vulnerable proves little, except they can be forced to withdraw by repeated further traumatizaion!

And apparently Binroy thinks that's some kind of justice? Or that the offended are not more important than goods and chattels or mere bagatelle?
Alan B.

Isn't this the same article as the one on Friday, with the comments removed. The title is certainly the same. Duh!

ttbn. Not quite the same, with circles of fire, deleted. But very similar and arguing the same failed, blame the victim, "I'll rephrase the question", case?

And understandable, given the last thing any criminal defence lawyer could ever want, is for jurisprudence to seriously consider, unbeatable space age lie detection, to more thoroughly test the evidence by both plaintiff and defendant?

Which has the potential to make both courts and lawyers almost completely redundant!

Besides, must be holiday time or something?
Alan B.

I'm sick of all this BS. All of a sudden it seems it's trendy to attack a celebrity or two. Do I have to remind everyone who was alive during the period all these 'crimes' were alleged to have happened, will remember how boys and girls interacted back then. All I have heard about these 'serious' BS allegations was the norm back then. These guys have done nothing wrong! OK you PC soft cocks, let's just compare what we do today to what we did back then. If it was so bad back then stuff your BS excuse that the women were too scared to come forward etc; etc: The morons who are pushing this crap have something to gain, just imagine if we were to charge people for retrospective 'crimes', which were not crimes back then, but due to these PC mongrels and their influence in high places, we are now questioning actions of the past judged by laws of the future. The accusers need to be punished not the accused.