This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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)