Am I the only one who thinks it is disgusting

A very ill informed statement Super Tyke - Stuart Hall's guilty plea is further proof that the police are right to name sex offenders, a la Bill Roache ....... usually they are serial offenders, so once the charge is public, it gives other victims the courage to come forward ....
Was a good article on Newsnight covering this topic last night ...........
DISCLAIMER Bill Roache is innocent until convicted in a court of law.

 

although I still think that they should not be named .... horrible thought.... as Saville could still have been on display in Scarborough

 

It's not a 'very ill informed statement' at all. It's his opinion on a very sensitive issue. That doesn't mean to say he's right, but it doesn't mean you're right either. Differing opinions but neither are very ill informed.

 

I kind of get this reasoning too... but the ease by which these claims can be made and the devastating impact it has on peoples lives - guilty or no - there should be equity.

It would be fairer for the accuser to choose.... both get anonymity or nobody gets anonymity...only fair way for me.

 

The thing is the police can ask people to come forward to make complaints of historic abuse - but they can't publish the name of a celebrity and say 'were you abused by Gary Glitter between the years of 1970 and 1990'. If official police disclosure is made to the media naming a celebrity, in the hope of attracting further reports against that person, they're breaking key evidential rules.

I would expect most of the names which have reached the media to have been leaked through irregular practises, discovered by investigative journalism, or otherwise obtained against the wishes of the investigation. The media is driving hard for premature disclosures and innocent people are likely to be affected badly, which is against the fundamental principles of British justice where ten guilty men should walk free to protect the rights of a wrongly accused innocent.

 

That should have read "The person arguing why the accused shouldn't remain anonymous was saying that rapists are often serial rapists"

Completely changes what they were saying - but from the responses I think you all read it as it should have been anyway!

 

As well as being ill infomed ... rather sexist ..... it could a been a bloke .... Saville was abusing boys/girls/coma victime !!!!

 

Bills not going to be calling his co-director and leading share holder (according to The Mirror) in Ridings Publishing as character witnesses.....Stuart Hall and Owen Oysten.....ouch

 

Explain the sexist bit to me again...

 

just can't understand why wait 46 years befor revealing this, me smells a dash for cash scenario

 

There seemed to be plenty of people who knew what Saville was up to all his career but never said anything. Maybe Bill Roaches dodgy comments in New Zealand were the tipping point for his alleged victim to come forward