Just watching the news about Dave Lee Travis, Rolf Harris, William Roache et al. Is it just me who believes that if they are all found not guilty of their alleged charges, then the women who brought the charges against them should be named?
I think it's grossly unfair, thinking back to the case with Kevin LeVell, that he had to endure the whole saga which likely ruined his life for many months (and probably still is) and yet the girl who pressed charges gets away without any recourse.
Just because a jury clears someone it does not mean they are totally 100% innocent, there a number of reasons why a jury finds someone not guilty, perhaps the alleged victim can not remember all details, maybe because there head is so screwed up after what happened to them, there mind blocks out certain parts.
And you say name them.
Here is a scenario for you:
Your walking down the street and you are dragged in the bushes and assaulted, but you go home and get showered washing vital evidence away, you go to the police and report it after, (it goes without saying the police will believe you) they go and arrest someone for it, (you do not want your name published) which is fair enough.
Now in court you can not remember much about the night as thinking about it makes you depressed and causes you emotional pain, and also you washed vital evidence away, the jury clear this person.
So you agree that your name should be published in the papers and the news branding you a lier.
I think not.
And am sorry but if there was a prize for the most stupid idea
then you have just won 1st prize.
Taking the above into account why should the accused be named before the jury finds them guilty?
e.g.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...o-face-her-victim-in-court-29733885.html
Lets not forget that Legal Aid has now gone....
Just because a jury clears someone it does not mean they are totally 100% innocent, there a number of reasons why a jury finds someone not guilty, perhaps the alleged victim can not remember all details, maybe because there head is so screwed up after what happened to them, there mind blocks out certain parts.
And you say name them.
Here is a scenario for you:
Your walking down the street and you are dragged in the bushes and assaulted, but you go home and get showered washing vital evidence away, you go to the police and report it after, (it goes without saying the police will believe you) they go and arrest someone for it, (you do not want your name published) which is fair enough.
Now in court you can not remember much about the night as thinking about it makes you depressed and causes you emotional pain, and also you washed vital evidence away, the jury clear this person.
So you agree that your name should be published in the papers and the news branding you a lier.
I think not.
And am sorry but if there was a prize for the most stupid idea
then you have just won 1st prize.
Agreed, and with regard to naming accusers, that is also a very sensitive issue. I don't think they should be named in these cases, but maybe the accuser should be liable to pay some compensation, if the accused is found innocent.
What if the accused can afford to buy a top rate lawyer and the survivor/ victim cannot?
What if the accused can afford to buy a top rate lawyer and the survivor/ victim cannot?
What if the accused can't and the accuser can ? That would be a more serious issue.
What if the accused can afford to buy a top rate lawyer and the survivor/ victim cannot?
What if the accused can't and the accuser can ? That would be a more serious issue.
Fair point.
Well, not 'more serious' but equally unfair.
How about one of the foundation stones of the British legal system, Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty means that no one can report on a case (with names) until the case is over.
If they are found Guilty, they can be named.
If they are found Not Guilty, they can't.
Forget all this rubbish about how if the names are published other victims could come forward, if the case was strong enough to win (and if it isn't legally it shouldn't be proceeded with anyway) then let it stand on its own feet.
Lives can be ruined FOREVER with false accusations, and some lies never die.
I don't think that accusers should have to pay the accused money if they are found Not Guilty, but I do think that any record check for any future prosecutions should show the history of any previous allegations made by the accusers.
Whatever happened to 'Innocent until proven guilty'?
The news is full of alleged offenders- was I asleep when the Law changed? Has it changed,even?
They are named so others can come forward.
Without them being named, evidence might not be found.
I don't think the law has changed, I think its the reporters using the words "Reportedly" and "allegedly" gets into the media and then it spreads.
But then thinking about it we always read Mr x has been remanded in custody until the court date charged with xxx. That gets into the news because you will have reporters in the courts posting such. I think there are even court listings in the buildings so you know who is in what court.
Innocent until proven guilty is all about the court room. IMO.
isn't that why it got to the point with the newspapers to sign up to a code of conduct to self police as it was all getting out of hand.
More should be done to protect the innocent, in certain cases, but with the names listed above, the media gave the victims the strength to come forward.
So i don't think there is one answer to fit all situations.
My thoughts.
I was reading about this on another forum and someone brought up Peter Adamson - Len Fairclough from Corrie.
Everyone remembers the accusations, but what they don't remember is that he was cleared.
Even his obituary continued to tar and taint him:
Street's shamed Len Fairclough diesDisgraced Coronation Street star Peter Adamson - who played womaniser Len Fairclough in the soap - has died a penniless recluse.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-95683/Streets-shamed-Len-Fairclough-dies.html
That is So Sad.
From a Screen Idol to Nobody.
I didn't even realise he had been cleared.
My opinion has always been this simple.
If there is a reason for the accuser to not be named the same should apply to the accused, only if a guilty verdict is delivered should the accused be named.
I was reading about this on another forum and someone brought up Peter Adamson - Len Fairclough from Corrie.
Everyone remembers the accusations, but what they don't remember is that he was cleared.
Even his obituary continued to tar and taint him:
Street's shamed Len Fairclough diesDisgraced Coronation Street star Peter Adamson - who played womaniser Len Fairclough in the soap - has died a penniless recluse.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-95683/Streets-shamed-Len-Fairclough-dies.html Yeah, so if he didn't do it the ... that accused should be punished for ruining his life.
Why do we say Innocent until proven guilty? Surely it should be Innocent UNLESS proven guilty? The former implies that you are guilty but it is not proven yet!
And am sorry but if there was a prize for the most stupid idea
then you have just won 1st prize.
Gee, thanks for that.
Let me give you a different scenario.
You're a man who has been stalked by a woman who you no longer care for. She is furious by this and retaliates by going to the police and says you sexually assaulted her 6 months ago. They have to act on this and so the whole sad saga begins. Maybe you lose your job because of all the stress, your family disown you and neighbours paint all kinds of threats on your garden fence.
Eventually, you are found not guilty, the woman has had no repercussions to this and faces no charges whatsoever despite the fact she lied and has in effect ruined your life.
I would thank you to think first before you accuse someone of being 1st prizewinner in a "stupid ideas contest". I am allowed to have opinions without being called stupid
I was reading about this on another forum and someone brought up Peter Adamson - Len Fairclough from Corrie.
Everyone remembers the accusations, but what they don't remember is that he was cleared.
Even his obituary continued to tar and taint him:
Street's shamed Len Fairclough diesDisgraced Coronation Street star Peter Adamson - who played womaniser Len Fairclough in the soap - has died a penniless recluse.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-95683/Streets-shamed-Len-Fairclough-dies.html Yeah, so if he didn't do it the ... that accused should be punished for ruining his life.
Exactly my point, thank you
"Yeah, so if he didn't do it the ... that accused should be punished for ruining his life."
And what if someone did do a crime and someone who saw him at the time but didnt realize what was going on , didnt come forward to give evidence because the report in the paper didnt have a face or name they could recognize , think back and realize they had witnessed something ?
My opinion, yes.Them who accuse should be named.Am sure in many cases it will.As Venice said not just his life his job his family.
I was reading about this on another forum and someone brought up Peter Adamson - Len Fairclough from Corrie.
Everyone remembers the accusations, but what they don't remember is that he was cleared.
Even his obituary continued to tar and taint him:
Street's shamed Len Fairclough diesDisgraced Coronation Street star Peter Adamson - who played womaniser Len Fairclough in the soap - has died a penniless recluse.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-95683/Streets-shamed-Len-Fairclough-dies.html Yeah, so if he didn't do it the ... that accused should be punished for ruining his life.
Exactly my point, thank you
I, was a child around the time of the 'Len Fairclough' trial. I remember reading my mums paper and was quite upset/ confused by 'graphic' paragraphs that were printed at that time. 'Horrific' descriptions of events that as a kid, I did not understand....
All these years later I did not know that the man was cleared....I'm shocked at that.
I still think the accusers should be named and shamed,it could be the person dont like the guy or girl it will come out one day.Its a awkward as some have of these false accusers will not own up.
Ok, look at it like this, here is an example of what
could happen to someone wrongfully accused, oh and may i add, this
did happen.
For those with weak minds read at your own risk as it is pretty sick and does go into great detail, be warned....
Murderpedia link
Shocking this,Shows how evil poeple can be.the accuser went down for it in the end.funny how the victim gets no publicity but the ones full of S---t do??.
Neither the accuser or the accused should be named unless the accused is found guilty.
I appreciate the comment about other victims coming forward if the accused is named but I don't think it justifies possibly ruining an innocent persons life.
As for naming the accuser and fining them or making them pay compensation???????? wtf!
Can you imagine how hideous it must be to have to report to the police that you've been raped and give them full details?
How many true victims would report it if they knew they would be named or even 'fined'?
Neither the accuser or the accused should be named unless the accused is found guilty.
I appreciate the comment about other victims coming forward if the accused is named but I don't think it justifies possibly ruining an innocent persons life.
As for naming the accuser and fining them or making them pay compensation???????? wtf!
Can you imagine how hideous it must be to have to report to the police that you've been raped and give them full details?
How many true victims would report it if they knew they would be named or even 'fined'?
Well , maybe it's a better option for the wrongly accused, to 'sue' the false accuser.
It can be done and has been done.
File a lawsuit against them and then their names will be publicised and they would be more than likely put in a pretty vulnerable position ,in more ways than one.
Who pays for the astronomical costs of these court cases? Compensation could be paid to the courts.
Lying under oath is a VERY serious offence. Why should some get away with it and not others ??????? wft!
My thoughts on this are because someone is found not guilty dosent always mean that they are not guilty, that is just the courts finding. As we all know many people have been convicted of crimes they never committed therefor courts can be wrong with guilty or not guilty findings , so naming the accuser could also be naming an innocent party.
Not Guilty is exactly that, other options are Guilty or Not Proven.
I wouldn't name the accused unless a guilty verdict is found, as for it may encourage other victims it could also lead to people making false accusations making the complaint appear weaker.
I also wouldn't name the accuser after a non guilty verdict, wont do anyone any good. However it is found that the accuser did make up the complaint and is convicted of making false accusations they should be named.
Not proven - only in Scotland ?
I think Rudebox was right on page 1 - maybe they can afford smarter lawyers than the rest of us - we wouldn't 'get away' with something similar (that we had done) because our lawyers would not be clever (i.e. expensive) enough to get us off...
Not proven - only in Scotland ?
Correct !
In the case of so called celebs, they have a free ticket to deny any wrong doing on the back of the Saville case screaming witchhunt along with their highly paid council,it does leave the alleged victim at a disadvantage how ridiculous for co stars to come forward as character witnesses, what a wonderful chap/women (but we didn't know him/her when the offences were committed)after all a devious abuser wouldn't dump on his/her own doorstep, this type of offence is covert, its amazing how many of the recently accused, knew all about Saville's reputation, but kept quiet, like minds?
and don't forget 90% of the public banging on about how "they are only in it for the money"
Now Dave Lee Travis is CLEARED of 12 counts of indecent assault.
Now Dave Lee Travis is CLEARED of 12 counts of indecent assault.
BRILLIANT !!! Not often I will shout out loud when reading on the laptop - but I did when I saw that news. Poor bugger has been through Hell but some of us never believed the stories/ claims.
I also saw a newspaper quote saying he was a "tactile" person but a Gent and not one who would cause offence. I fully understand that. Some people are "tactile" and there is nothing wrong with that. I have spent a lot of time in South America and there it is ABSOLUTELY normal for people to touch/ hug and be "tactile" with NO ulterior motives.
Where this verdict leaves the Police operation against celebrities I have no idea. Whatever is said it must surely cast doubt on any future action.
And YES, in my view there should be naming of those who have accused and the verdict has been not guilty.
Snod
Looks like Freddy is up next.
Not proven - only in Scotland ?
Correct !
Ok the same as "failed to reach a verdict" in my opinion, just wrong wording.