Wednesday, 14 March 2018

"...a vague word to get the desired effect without going into details..."

Mr Sarayiah told the Daily Mail: ‘People cannot be allowed to make allegations anonymously. I can’t defend myself without knowing the details of the complaints. I did not act inappropriately in any way.’
Unfortunately, Mr Sarayiah, these days, you're expected to do just that.
When the university told him he was no longer welcome at events because of complaints about his behaviour, he launched court action to find out exactly what these allegations were.
At a hearing, a judge agreed that the university should release the information, but not the names of the women who made the accusations.
Another stunning snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory for our so-called 'justice' system...
But in defiance of the court, Mr Sarayiah told Durham that the women could be identified. Under a new high court judgment, Sir David Eady ruled that the university did not have to name the women – and they have now sent Mr Sarayiah the lawyers’ £24,000 bill.
He could face contempt of court proceedings.
And he will. Because if there's one thing that universities will fight to the death over these days, it's the right of women or minorities to make the most absurd claims without proof.
But he plans to appeal, claiming the document listing seven women’s complaints ‘was malicious and had been conjured up’, despite a judge warning he had no such evidence
I'd say he has all the evidence he needs.


Ted Treen said...

Secrecy in the courts and anonymity for accusers takes our legal system even further from justice.

Robert the Biker said...

Since when did he NEED evidence? Accusations have been made against him, the basic point of law is" the burden of proof is on he who attests a thing, not on him who denies it", this is basic common law!

Thud said...

The chap in question despite all the above is rather a wrong un!