So you would be happy to have your name splattered all over the national media if a girl accused you of a crime that you never committed? Neither party should ever be named until a court case when both should then be named.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Getting out of hand.
- Thread starter BensGrandad
- Start date
So you would be happy to have your name splattered all over the national media if a girl accused you of a crime that you never committed? Neither party should ever be named until a court case when both should then be named.
There are far to many examples of victim bashing (cnn covered one rape case where two school sports stars were found guilty of rape and they tried to make the story a sympathetic one for them because their lives were ruined by the prosecution, their bright futures as top athletes and college scholarships taken away from them because charges were pressed against them, their victim has been bullied by a lot of people; there are attitudes that a woman deserves it, even when her attacker is proven guilty in a court of law) for me to feel safe of any rape victim being named, ever.
The issue of the alleged attacker is a bit more complicated. There may be other victims who are suffering, too scared to speak out, but knowing he is under investigation may feel able to speak up.
As cynical as this sounds, you should remember that a court finding someone not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it, or less cynically, that the victim wasn't attacked by someone, so you can't have a blanket "if he's guilty he gets named, if he's not she gets named" policy.
It should be dealt with on a case by case basis, IMO.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,306
That isn't true, it is still called unlawful sex with a minor. Statutory rape is a different crime.
If they the victim is between the ages of 13-15 they can give their consent, a person can still be charged with unlawful sex with a minor if the victim was under 16, the defence can use the argument that the accused thought the victim was over the age of consent. They can still be charged with rape if their was no consent. If they are younger than 13 then they cannot have given their consent in the eyes of the law and that is statutory rape, the accused cannot use the defence that they thought the victim was older.
The following pdf covers the basics of the current UK Law.
http://www.fpa.org.uk/media/uploads/professionals/factsheets-non-printing/law-on-sex-factsheet-january-2011.pdf
One of the other things the fact sheet makes clear is that the law is not designed to prosecute two similar aged teenagers engaging in consensual sexual activity.
I do agree with those that are saying that both the victim and the accused should be given the same rights to anonymity until the guilty verdict. It would afford the accused a fairer trial and if the accused is found not guilty then they can get on with their lives a lot easier. With the current way of naming the accused it would appear that a lot of mud sticks no matter the verdict, infact I doubt most people even remember the trial in a lot of cases just the headlines when the accused is arrested and charged.
Last edited:
Yes, seen that. Still I believe in anominity still.
shaolinpunk
[Insert witty title here]
He was originally charged with three assaults. Then he was named. Now he has been charged with, and admitted to, 14 sexual assaults.
Coincidence, or victims coming forward after he was named?
Coincidence, or victims coming forward after he was named?
[On William Roache]
[On Michael Le Vell]
Just a few hours on and another case shows that your thinking on this subject is completely and utterly warped.
Do you think it's too late to prosecute Stuart Hall? Should the victims/police have just left it?
And do you think he should be left alone because he looks like a broken man?
Your comments were - and are - disgraceful.
[On Michael Le Vell]
Just a few hours on and another case shows that your thinking on this subject is completely and utterly warped.
Do you think it's too late to prosecute Stuart Hall? Should the victims/police have just left it?
And do you think he should be left alone because he looks like a broken man?
Your comments were - and are - disgraceful.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Convenient or what ?
Monsieur Le Plonk
Lethargy in motion
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
One thing we agree on.
p.s. After reading what you wrote again you didn't say what I thought, but did come dangerously close to inferring it. Apologies.
LE19
New member
Difficult one. On the one hand, surely each individual crime should be provable without reference to others? "He's done it before" doesn't prove anything. OTOH, as you say, other victims may come forward, but also witnesses might only come forward if the defendant is named.
Generally, I'm more in favour of anonimity for both parties.
Oh just piss of you ****. I can't be bothered to argue with such a bell end. I said nothing of the sort, ok Hall is guilty but it does not mean by default they all are and there should be anonminity for both parties until guilt has been decided or otherwise and yes there are people broken who were found not guilty. I really don't give a **** what you think of me. Do one.
The publication or broadcast of any libelous or slanderous statement about an individual or business that can be proven to be false and published with the intention of harming that entity's reputation is considered to be defamation. Online defamation is the publication of such statements made on any Internet based media including blogs, forums, websites, and even social networking websites. While many Internet users believe that they are free to say and do as they like while on the Internet, this is untrue and the same defamation laws and regulations stand for online defamation as they do in any form of media.
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
AS MUCH DRAMA AS A SOAP OPERA ................. DEPRESSING AND PREDICTABLE
regards
DR
regards
DR
Oh US, why do you do this to yourself? Why do you never learn? Have you never noticed that virtually no other poster reacts the way you do when having a fairly heated debate? You just don't seem to be able to cope with a Messageboard of people full of differing opinions.
How long until you are NEVER POSTING AGAIN?(again)
Don’t name the accused?
The publicity surrounding Stuart Hall’s initial arrest led to more victims coming forward. He was subsequently charged with abusing 10 more girls and the rape of a 22yo woman between 1968 and 1986.
So if Hall wasn’t named, the police might not have got the original charges to stick, leaving a guilty man free and innocent victims left with no voice and no hope of closure.
The publicity surrounding Stuart Hall’s initial arrest led to more victims coming forward. He was subsequently charged with abusing 10 more girls and the rape of a 22yo woman between 1968 and 1986.
So if Hall wasn’t named, the police might not have got the original charges to stick, leaving a guilty man free and innocent victims left with no voice and no hope of closure.
afters
Well-known member
hold on there wozza. this bloke is upset about it all though. spare a thought for him won't you?
El Sid
Well-known member
Sort of agree, but there is a quite distinct difference between "being questioned" and being "charged".
To avoid potential humiliation of innocent people, stars or not, I think the naming of uncharged suspects could be avoided.
Just a thought.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
It's a grey area, I still can't work out which side of the fence I'm on, there are many pros and cons either way.
Usually I would argue on the side of anonymity, assuming the person is convicted and named there is still a chance for other victims to come forward, it would just be at a later date in the process.