Muliaina case dismissed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-34569801

"The allegation was that her bottom had been fleetingly touched on a busy nightclub dance floor."

Wow, didn't realise that was why he was marched off the field and arrested. Crazy.

I don't want to make light of sexual assault, but really? Woman in club gets a fleeting hand on her bottom?

Wonder how many blokes (and women!) would be arrested every Sunday morning if each one was pulled up and taken to court

I hope he sues... that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Mud sticks, he's a public figure and given the court threw it out, innocent.

I assume the girl was felt up... but for a man to be arrested like that. That's ridiculous.

He should never have had his name mentiond untill the court hearing.

There are too many of these case's in my opinion where a Woman says he touched me and is believed whole heartedly by the police.

I hope he sues every body involved in this...the Woman, the police. and every body else.

What happend to innocent untill proven guilty in this country?

Problem with cases like this is that it's lose lose for the athlete, the idea behind these types of complaints are two fold...

Revenge - Had he grabbed a womens bum, and she not been happy.

Money - Looking for a pay off

Either way Mils has his name dragged through the mud.

On the lighter side of things though, I've been out in Cardiff numerous times, and there would be life sentences thrown at people all the time if groping is an offence.

There's no guarantee it was even him to be honest, dance floors are often busy.

majesticimperialman wrote:He should never have had his name mentiond untill the court hearing.

There are too many of these case's in my opinion where a Woman says he touched me and is believed whole heartedly by the police.

I hope he sues every body involved in this...the Woman, the police. and every body else.

What happend to innocent untill proven guilty in this country?

I think the innocent until proven guilty defence has long gone these days. As people have said not wanting to make light of any allegation of this nature but until its proven it is just that an allegation.

The women get to stay anonymous yet a guys name is all over local/national (if well known) news and papers.

Seems a bit OTT either way to have marched him off the field in front of the public and the media. Badly handled by the police, what was he going to do, flee the country?

Not the first time this kind of things happened to rugby players either, Strettle and Ojo in NZ had a similar claim dismissed against them.

Something needs to be done to protect celebrities and sports personalities from this kind of publicity based purely on a accusation, this for me would need to go through parliament for a change of law to prevent these cases from been reported on until after a conviction.

Has this woman been named?  Muliaina was.

He's been found innocent now.  Was the woman's name made public now?

This concept of protecting the accuser's identity but readily naming and shaming the accused is plainly and simply wrong.

If the accuser gets anonymity, then the accused should be afforded the same respect until and if found guilty.
But if the accused is to be named, then certainly the accuser should be named if his/her case falls apart.

You can't say the woman didn't have her bottom touched, but if she wasn't looking and it was on a dance floor then there is no guarantee it was Muliaina, she was facing the wrong way for a start.  I remember years ago I was drinking in Bridgend with some friends and a girl was stood next to me in a bar, minding my own business, she turned around and gave me a tirade of abuse about touching her and stormed off.  I had no idea what she was on about, until my best friend cracked up laughing and had squeezed her áss while her back was facing me so I'd get the blame.

I saw the funny side of it, but wouldn't of if she'd had a boy friend with her or had gone to the bouncers, it could of got nasty quite quickly, but you don't think about these things when your drunk.

yappysnap wrote:Not the first time this kind of things happened to rugby players either, Strettle and Ojo in NZ had a similar claim dismissed against them.

Difference being, they werent arrested, they werent charged in court, the complaint was investigated, I dont see how you can infer that its the same "kind of thing". OR are you taking about a separate incident?

2ndtimeround wrote:Something needs to be done to protect celebrities and sports personalities from this kind of publicity based purely on a accusation, this for me would need to go through parliament for a change of law to prevent these cases from been reported on until after a conviction.

you would seriously want one law for the rich and famous and a different law for the rest of us?

SecretFly wrote:Has this woman been named?  Muliaina was.

He's been found innocent now.  Was the woman's name made public now?

This concept of protecting the accuser's identity but readily naming and shaming the accused is plainly and simply wrong.

If the accuser gets anonymity, then the accused should be afforded the same respect until and if found guilty.
But if the accused is to be named, then certainly the accuser should be named if his/her case falls apart.

Officially he has not been found innocent.

Officially the CPS has deemed there was not enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

All we know about the actual allegations are how they are described by the defence lawyer - so no vested interest there.

ebop wrote:"The allegation was that her bottom had been fleetingly touched on a busy nightclub dance floor."

Wow, didn't realise that was why he was marched off the field and arrested. Crazy.

Had my firm arse grabbed a few times in Cardiff on a night out. Lot older now and much less firm in that department. Unfortunately.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

ebop wrote:"The allegation was that her bottom had been fleetingly touched on a busy nightclub dance floor."

Wow, didn't realise that was why he was marched off the field and arrested. Crazy.

Had my firm arse grabbed a few times in Cardiff on a night out. Lot older now and much less firm in that department. Unfortunately.

Unfortunate for the grabber these days too I suppose, Dave.

Griff wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

ebop wrote:"The allegation was that her bottom had been fleetingly touched on a busy nightclub dance floor."

Wow, didn't realise that was why he was marched off the field and arrested. Crazy.

Had my firm arse grabbed a few times in Cardiff on a night out. Lot older now and much less firm in that department. Unfortunately.

Unfortunate for the grabber these days too I suppose, Dave.

Depends and the Philly has always had all sorts.

Ah, the Philly. Good and bad memories, and no memories at all sometimes too.

Griff wrote:Ah, the Philly. Good and bad memories, and no memories at all sometimes too.

The Philly is a portal to hell.

Shows how times have changed, we have a friend that used to use the underground in London a lot in the 70's, she quite happily states that if you didn't get a good grope in the packed carriages, you wondered what was wrong with you.

Not saying I agree with her, but attitudes were different then.

Completely agree about the anonymity. Look at all the recent cases over here where celebrity or ex-celebrity have been named for committing assaults etc. that the courts have decided have no basis in fact and dismissed the case, or worse the press has been informed of a raid and are there before the police who found nothing, but the person I question; a certain Harry Webb comes to mind, get abused and rubbished all over the press but have not committed or even been arrested for any crime.

The people or supposed crime professionals that make these accusations should be held up to the full account of both the law and the ignominy of being proved a liar and a fraud or a money grubbing snake that would sell their mothers to the press for a £5

Money grabbing is the big prob, not arse grabbing.
End poverty i've seen on the tv. End greed I say.

Changes to the way the legal costs incurred by the accused when proven innocent are dealt with, have made the biggest difference. Now people like Mills and William Roach and others who have been falsely accused cannot recover the cost of their defence from the court. This means quite simply that the CPS will prosecute on the basis of much flimsier evidence, particularly so if the accused is a famous person.

The evidence wasnt flimsy, there was no evidence.

Reminds me of the Ched Evans case - no solid evidence for that either.

If there was no evidence then the case was rightly thrown out. I am a Connacht supporter and I have enjoyed Mils being with us. But for the mainly male audience on here... I can assure you both statistically and anecdotally that the presence of sexual assault that is directed at women is much more likely to have happened but not be reported at all rather than the tiny ( and I mean tiny) number of cases where a woman wrongly accuses someone (famous or not famous) of sexual assault. That doesn't make the latter in anyway right of course, but maybe spread some of your righteous indignation for all those women who have had terrible things happen to them and because there wasn't wnough evidence, the police recommended they not even take the case.

The point on privacy is of course valid. Neither accuser or accused should be publicly named until the court convenes.

mikey_dragon wrote:Reminds me of the Ched Evans case - no solid evidence for that either.

Are you for real? Are you really comparing these cases?

From what I read, which was the 'evidence' given in the Evans court case then I'm baffled as to how he was convicted. If you wish to discuss it further then message me privately. I'd rather do it that way than have you disintegrate another thread with your usual turd talk which is all that you're capable of - so I don't really expect a direct message from you.

Ah and I see as per usual you have complained about my comment. Surely that's taking advantage of the complaints system which in itself is against house rules? I suggest you stay off this forum Cyril, you aren't cut out for it.

I think that's the first time I've complained about one of your comments (certainly in a very long time). Only doing it because it's a sensitive subject and you're being offhandedly offensive about a serious matter.

wolfball wrote:If there was no evidence then the case was rightly thrown out. I am a Connacht supporter and I have enjoyed Mils being with us. But for the mainly male audience on here... I can assure you both statistically and anecdotally that the presence of sexual assault that is directed at women is much more likely to have happened but not be reported at all rather than the tiny ( and I mean tiny) number of cases where a woman wrongly accuses someone (famous or not famous) of sexual assault. That doesn't make the latter in anyway right of course, but maybe spread some of your righteous indignation for all those women who have had terrible things happen to them and because there wasn't wnough evidence, the police recommended they not even take the case.

The point on privacy is of course valid. Neither accuser or accused should be publicly named until the court convenes.

As one of the mainly male people that have protested the naming of Mils and not the equal naming of his accuser.... let me just make my point on that, wolf.

If this was a debate about a woman being abused and some man getting away with it even with lots of evidence in the public domain that was certainly leading in his direction, then I'd be somewhere fighting tooth and nail for justice for her....as I did in the debates on the lower pages here when the Pistorius case was ongoing.

I have five sisters and have been protective of them all my life.  This is not a bunch of hairy sniggering men making fun or light of women being groped, certainly not from me anyway.  It's about justice for a man and his reputation...and it's about recognising the unequal treatment meted out to an innocent man and in turn to his accuser.