Am I the only one who thinks it is disgusting

That a woman can anonymously accuse somebody of raping her 46 years ago when there is absolutely no chance of finding any physical evidence of the attack happening and the accused is instantly named on TV, national radio and in all the newspapers and it is all legal?

 

The fact that it's 46 years ago and there is little chance of any physical evidence is irrelevant to me. If it was last night and there's a ton of physical evidence I'd still feel the same. In my opinion it is wrong and immoral to name these people before they are charged.

 

We were talking about this at work and I said exactly what Jay just said.

 

Quite right Jay, that is my view too. I just thought that how long ago it was helped to show the absurdity of the law.

I'd go one further than you and say they shouldn't be named until proven guilty not just charged. I also think that if the judge/jury decides that there was never a case to answer (ie the 'victim' made up the charges then THEY should be named and shamed

 

100% Agreed

 

In principle I agree that you shouldn't be named and shamed until found guilty. However, I don't think that's possible in practice. If there's a court case how do you hide the defendants identity?

Don't agree with naming and shaming the victim though. If there's not enough evidence to bring the matter to court it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen.

 

I agree with your general point ST and with Jay's more precise point however I do think that in these cases the time since the alleged offence is an issue because unlike ‘standard cases (I use this word loosely)’ I can't see any chance, not even remote, of a conviction unless the accused confesses.

 

Blanche had him sussed years ago.

 

I think it's wrong to name someone before they are charged.* But by that rule, you could say the same thing about the Saville accusations too. You can also question the use of resources for an allegation of which there is virtually no chance of bringing a conviction.

* Apart from Max Clifford, which was fcking hilarious.

 

Who named him?

 

I agree. It was fun when Freddie Starr, Dave Lee Travis and Jim Davidson finally got their commeuppance, but when Rolf Harris and Ken Barlow get brought into it you do realise that your dislike for the people aforementioned blinded you to the fact that it is not fair i dragging their names across the papers before they have even been charged with anything, particularly when it is going to be so costly and difficult to prove, but also because how on earth are these people going to receive a fair trial once they have already received trial by media.

However, there can be justification for naming the accused if they believe he was a serial offender. For example, Savile's name in the press, when he was first accused, led a lot of other individuals who had been living with the shame of what had happened to them years ago to come forward and reveal that they too had been abused by him. By naming these people we may find that it is more than just one or two counts of rape that they are eventually tried for. It's all a bit of a minefield though and there is no easy answer.

Where will it end though? Every rock and pop star, and I mean right to the knights of the realm, of the 60s and 70s...in fact, right up to modern times, must be absolutely sh!tting themselves. Just imagine how many girls who were under the age of 16 at the time could name McCartney, Jagger, Rod, Bill Wyman, Jimmy Page, etc. Jeysus, Page and Wyman didn't even try to hide the fact that they were sleeping with under age girls. Wyman married his! Then again, so did Elvis.

Someone made the crack a while back that they should resurrect Radio Caroline as a prison ship for DJs. It seems they now need to turn the Rovers Return into some sort of correctional facility. Isn't that three from this year alone who have been accused of being possessed by the spirit of Len Fairclough?

 

His mum and dad.

 

Agreed. Long since thought that the accused should not be named in cases like this until they are at least charged.

 

Great use of '*'!!! Clifford is a scum bag

 

happens in the USA as well, ruined Paul Reubens career.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reubens#Pornography_arrest:_2002

 

This is REALLY DISGUSTING:

http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/2632?share_ref=ghW4CkYzRNQ

 

Done.

 

People who make false allegations should face the same penalty that the accuser would face if guilty
I knew someone who was falsely accused of rape. His and is families life was turned upside down for nearly a year until the woman finally confessed
It is a despicable act and the fact that these people invariably get away with just a slap on the wrist makes it an all too common problem

 

I think the major difference is that under age sex is happening every day all over the country, sometimes between two partners who are under age, sometimes only one is. In law we don't believe that the underage individual has the maturity and understanding of their own sexuality to offer true consent - but a number of these teenagers (predominantly) think they do. So when 14 year old girl starts having sex with scum bag 19 year old boyfriend that she 'loves' - no complaint is forth coming, and in fact, when police and authorities get involved she will protect him, deny that he is the father, refuse to cooperate with enquiries, won't give evidence.

There are plenty of people who lost their virginity before the age of 16 - they're not lining up to make reports to the police either. In the Jimmy Page example he notoriously had a long term girlfriend who was under age, but he was the high profile rock star and icon and he showered her in his attention and flew her around the world with him. I very much doubt that he is worried about her making any complaints - pragmatically speaking, for right or wrong, I'd be stunned if he got roped into all this.

There is something different about what is going on with these celebrities. I really don't understand why these people are being named/outed at this stage, but it must be enormously difficult to keep these names out of the press when so many media vultures will pay money for the next scandal. I know nothing more than anyone else about Operation Yew Tree, but I get the impression that they are focusing on celebrities who have/may have a serialised and previously undisclosed history of sexual offending against persons who have now come forward.

This is hugely troubling because these victims have been harmed and these offences that are being investigated are seriously criminal. The Saville scenario is one aspect of Yew Tree (according to the media) - and it is sickening - but I think people are genuinely troubled and feel uneasy about the ongoing 'name and shame' campaign that the tabloid media seem to be feasting on at the minute, and I don't think this campaign is helping the victims (who are the most important people in all this).

 

There was an interesting discussion on BBC 2's Newsnight last night on this subject. The person arguing why the accused should remain anonymous was saying that rapists are often serial rapists, it's unlikely they just have the one victim, and victims are often too scared to come forward to report, if one person reports it and the accused is named, the other victims see that and are more likely to come forward.
I see the reasoning behind that, although I still think that they should not be named, it was an interesting point.