Forums Forums National News Should the accusers be named?

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.

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!

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

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 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??.

Ken Barlow cleared.
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-02-06/...free-after-being-cleared-of-all-charges/

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.