Gnu.

British law allows testimony from previous alleged victims of a rapist.

If a guy attacks a woman and it is his word against hers, but it turns out that he has been in the same situation with numerous other unconnected women, then the court is likely to judge that it is likely that he is lying.

Some circumstancial evidence is allowed and in this case the accumulation of accusations against the same man by numerous women points towards the likelihood that he has been a naughty boy.


"Oops... I posted again on this thread which exonerates "victims" carte blanche. No trial, no jury, guilty no matter what."

I think you need to just engage a little more carefully with what has actually been said so that you can understand some of the distinctions that have been made a little better.