W_Y - you are totally missing the point.I wrote the article as I was watching the news and a man was being arrested on the accusation of one woman - it was not that he was rich, or famous , or that this was a rape accusation. The point was -and it could happen to you or me - that an individual was accused of a crime so serious that the accusation itself had life changing effects. Whether this was rape or murder or another serious crime is not the relevant point - it is also not relevant whether or not he is guilty - as that will be established later. The relevant point is that the law is unfair - again actually nothing in this instance to do with the press. The law is unfair. Whether he is or is not found guilty of the offence his life has been seriously ruined - so would yours be if the same happened to you and I assume you do not count yourself as a rich fat cat. I understand the points above about the law being changed to encourage the reporting of rape so that the "victim" if there proves to be one - is given anonymity. However that change has created a situation as bad if not worse than the one it was intended to help. In a situation where an accusation can ruin someone's life it is not right that only one side should be named. In fact I would not allow the reporting of either name until at the very least a prosecution proved there was a case to answer. That man - and probably hundreds if not thousands like him will live with a mark against him for the rest of his life - if it turns out he is found not guilty - how do you give him back his life? At the very least I would advocate that in the case of a malicious accusation the accuser would then be named and tried for that crime.
I'm fine with the accused being named if there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial. My point was, anyone can make an accusation and ruin a person's life... if it is true, then I think they deserve to be named! A jilted person can just accuse someone and while they can stay anonymous, the accused's name is dragged through the press, even though they may have done absolutely nothing wrong, but they will always have that stigma attached to their name.
Lenny - No, when you wrote this thread he had been charged with rape, not mearly arrested. If your argument is that in serious cases the names of both should be left anonymous, then the question will always be, where is your line? What about murder, surely the victim would not care? what about a person who is accused of crippling someone by dangerous driving?, what about someone who is caught down loading child porn?, what about indecent assault? - tell us where your line is? Mine is that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the crown to prove their case - not the victim, they do not persue the case and that all cases should be treated exactly the same. It might not be perfect but it gives the accused the best protection - if they are proven not-guilty against the weight of evidence then that is as it should be.
W_Y - you are right about the timing of my posting but my point was about the fact that his name was released before any charges were brought. I accept this is a minefield of legislation and do not pretend to have the answers. So exactly when a name should be released to the public and whether the accuser should be named is open for debate. However for me this is a case of basic human rights - and I am surprised this has not been challenged either at Supreme Court level in the Sates or by the European Big Court ) ) Put it this way. Pretend you have a son who attends a work course. He is in his room an amorous chambermaid doing his turn down service makes advances which he rejects. She is annoyed and cries rape. The police are called; he is arrested and taken to a police station. All his family and friends and your friends and neighbours and his work are told that he is being accused of rape. Souind good, right or fair? Oh and his work insist he resigns straightaway as it has brought the Company into disrepute Well this is pretty close to that apart from whether or not the allegations are true as we don't know that.
I think that is the problem, they are just the 'accused' and not been charged, so it doesn't mean they have done it. Anyone can accuse anyone else of something but doesn't mean there is any proof of it. Once they are charged, then that must mean there is a good case against that person and then they can be named, but until such a point, they are innocent until proved otherwise and should be treated as such. Say for example you have a work night out, a young office temp tries it on with you. You refuse but then she tells everyone you assualted her. She calls the police, the lcoal newspaper picks up on your arrest and you are front page news! No doubt when they look at the evidence they will see you are 100% innocent... but people won't remember the story that you didn't do it... they will remember the front page headlines and you and your family will have to live with people whispering behind your back for a very long time Justa quick point... this isn't a direct repsonse to the IMF guy, just a generalisation about how the press can so easily accuse but the apology isn't quite such 'exciting' news for them.
Kev - hardly a sheet of paper between us - you have got my point exactly. ... and yes - the article was inspired by the IMF case but it is the bifgger principle I care about ( I nearly added that he is probably a slime-ball anyway -but in fact that would only confirm that the press have already tarnished him in our minds)
I was writing the same time as you I think... but yes, certainly agree with you! The fact that the public think this guy is guilty whether he is or not shows you just the power the press have! With all the coverage, surely it calls into question the power of the media, especially if the guy is guilty but the coverage causes the judge to throw out the case because the defendant won't get a fair trial (sorry, I don't know if this can actually happen... could it be classed as a mistrial?). This is another reason why i think naming the accused isn't a good thing until the trial!!
No the local press will not pick up on the fact that you have been arrested, how would they know? The Police do not reveal who they arrested. You name is only revealed in the published court papers when you would have been formally charged and had to appear in front of the court to answer the charge - it appears on the court papers that day. Then the prosecution has to get the evidence to make it stick - in your case there is none and the charges would be dropped and the whole thing forgotten, the press would not have anything to report.
But if this person is making it up, they are doing it to harm you so if they want it 'leaked', it will get to the papers! Your above scenario is the way it should be for everyone... Not just for unknown people! Why should someone have the accusations splashed everywhere just because they are famous? Until there is hard evidence, a charge and a trial, no-one should know about it!
So I go back to my point, you are propsing that if you are rich and/or famous you get treated differently?
No they shouldn't be.... everyone should be treated the same. No names in papers, no-one named until there is some proof that they have done what they have been accused of.
It's the exact opposite of that W_Y Stop and consider my earlier scenario where your friends, family neighbours etc are informed of an unsubstantiated accusation - would you accept that - because that is what happens if the press target you - why should these people suffer and others not? Same for all - until there is a substantive case it should not be allowed to be reported
So whose the odd one out...... Lee Hughes, Peter Story, Micky Thomas, Graham French, Teddy Maybank, Bobby Moore, Marlon King
