From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. |
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
I understand s23g evidence act is widely criticised because it has no logical probative value i.e. it allows expert winesses to state that ANY (or all) behaviours are consistent with sexual abuse, not "it allowed an expert to say that there was no behaviour inconsistent with sexual abuse." Why use the double negative? Richard 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Richard, I think you're correct but I was quoting Thorp, who I understand used the double negative. 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher
-
- OK, I've since noticed that Bernard Robertson used same double negative in his criticism of 23g as well. Perhaps it's an innate characteristic of legal people to create complexity out of simplicity. [deity of your choice] help us all. Richard 10:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
