O/T Sexual allegations. A change in the law needed?

[Lenny Rider]

As Michael Le Vell (Corrie's Kevin Webster) is the latest person who has to endure trial by tabloid, surely a person is innnocent until proven guilty?

Should the accused not be allowed anonymity (like the alleged victim) until they have been convicted by a court?

Didn't this used to be the case?

 

[Champagne charles]

Once you get branded, it will always stick even if you done nothing wrong

Unfair in my opinion

 

[DerbyGull]

It ruins peoples lives even after they've been cleared. People will always be wary of you. Wrong in my opinion.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Should the accused not be allowed anonymity (like the alleged victim) until they have been convicted by a court?

I have always thought this, but it's difficult to enforce I would think.

 

[Acker79]

The problem is when the crime is sexual in nature, there is a bit more of an emotional reaction, especially with younger women, and even children. The idea of innocent until proven guilty is ignored by the mob who want to know if their kids are at risk, want to protect their daughter, their sister, their wife and if there's a chance she's at risk from this guy we should know! And the sentiment of 'innocent until proven guilty' is overridden by the sentiment 'there's not smoke without fire'.


Yes, alleged abusers should have anonymity, but there will regularly be cases where people will demand to know identities becuase of that fear.

 

[magoo]

Anonymous until proven guilty should be the bloody law.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

As Michael Le Vell (Corrie's Kevin Webster) is the latest person who has to endure trial by tabloid, surely a person is innnocent until proven guilty?

Should the accused not be allowed anonymity (like the alleged victim) until they have been convicted by a court?

Didn't this used to be the case?

the victim always gets lifelong anonymity (there are certain cases when they wouldn't though ie. if they choose to waive it)

i THINK you're allowed to say that the accused is being questioned etc. but you have to be very careful with regards to contempt

 

[keaton]

Some times it also leads to further victims/accusers coming forward who had previously been too scared

 

[Rookie]

Until found guilty everybody should be entitled to anonymity unless they waive that right, don't see how it can be in the interests of justice to splash someones name all over the papers/news when they have not been proven of guilt. The media tread a very fine line with naming someone and the right to a fair trial and its time the government come down on them even though they will claim rights to freedom of press

 

[Storer 68]

has be been charged?? If not, then he is just beoing questioned or "helping police with their enquiries", niether of which changes his status from an innocent man to suspected of breaking the law.

So people are always innocent unless proven ptherwise.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes, alleged abusers should have anonymity, but there will regularly be cases where people will demand to know identities becuase of that fear.

i think there needs to be at least a middle ground. as it is, being arrested or merely questioned is publicised. if it never goes to court you are still tarred. maybe only release publicly when it makes it to court?

 

[Gazwag]

Problem is, all the time people buy the sun, hello and all the other celebrity hungry papers/mags this stuff will be reported.

Whether its right or wrong it comes with the celebrity turf

 

[Storer 68]

Reporting the accusation is not unlawful.

naming the alleged victim will probably bring you a charge of contempt

 

[Chicken Runner61]

What Blokes need to know is that they way things are now is that YOU can be accused of harassment and it will be investigated by the Police and you won't even know about it.

An example I come across in my line charity work is as follows...

Bloke splits up from ex and sees his kids every other week. Ex wants to get rid of him from her life as she has new partner and its a pain having to lose her kids every other week and half the holidays, xmas birthdays etc etc.

He goes to family court to sort it out so its clear So she messes around his contact, they have an argument on the phone about it, she slams phone down. He rings back, she puts phone down, He rings back, she tells him he will never see his kids again slams phone down. He rings back but phone never answers. He keeps ringing...... If she reports it Police will record it as Domestic violence or harassment (depends what she says) they may or may not speak to him but they may pass details on to social services (as kids are involved) he may never know about this allegation until he goes to court when it may be used against him.

Police say that after three calls to a phone its harassment and it doesn't matter that he just wants to see his kids. If she reports it and they do investigate it they warn him not to ring AGAIN. They will also tell him to go to court which can take months (NOT WEEKS) in which time he will not see his kids. If she really wants to stuff him up she can now start alleging other things and because the police have a record of his calls it can be blown up out of all proportion. If he has been silly and shouted, swore or any of the other dumb things some people do in their despair to see their kids God help him!

The law works that whoever reports it first is the victim and if its a woman it will be taken very seriously whatever the circumstances - If a bloke reports it they will be lucky to even get an interview!

The police know that stuff is made up, I have even helped policemen and policewomen accused of this and they admit the police are crap on this. Yes SOMETIMES (but not that often) the bloke is a twat and was PARTLY at fault but there are loads of people mainly blokes who are desperate to see their kids and the law is being used against them.

I knew a bloke who was accused of stalking his ex because she "thought" she heard someone in the path behind her garden. She backed it up with a story that he had verbally abused her in a shop even though he had video evidence to prove it was her that attacked him!

He only found out about the accusation six months later when she raised it in court when they were about to grant him contact. Needless to say this new "evidence" took another six months to be proved false in which time he didn't see his son.

In the eyes of the family court you are considered likely to have committed the crime unless you can prove your innocence there and then!

 

[Nottseagull]

Bloke splits up from ex

Am I right in presuming this treatment is just for boyfriends, and that if the father is the ex-husband then he has more rights than those you say are denied to them?

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Should be for any criminal offence regardless of the nature. Why should someone life be ruined over an allegation that may or may not be true.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Am I right in presuming this treatment is just for boyfriends, and that if the father is the ex-husband then he has more rights than those you say are denied to them?

ABSOLUTELY NOT - It makes no difference if you were married for 1 month or 25 years.


When you split up there is no presumption of equal care or contact. I have known fathers who were main carers or house husbands suddenly go from 24/7 care to not seeing their kids at all in days.


The law is crap - all it needs is to be worded that in the event of separation or divorce equal status and presumption of equal contact.

At present UNLESS you are fortunate to break up amicably you have to go to court to get equal contact and because most day to day care USED to be done by mothers the system lets mothers assume they are the uber parent who decides initially how things will work out.


Also If you were NOT married and your child was born before 1st DEC 2003 you do not have parental responsibility for your child which mean legally you are not the parent even if you were on the birth cert.

This has serious implications as your role as parent in getting medical and school information and possibly adoption of your child.

After 2003 you only needed to be named on the birth cert to get it.

If you weren't on it before 2003 to get it you had to..
Marry the mother or Re-register the birth.

or Co-Sign a Parental Responsibility Agreement with the mother, and submit it to the court.
or obtain a Parental Responsibility Order from the courts
...or in some cases Become the child's guardian upon the mother's death.

 

[Nathan]

But what is Michael Le Vell (Corrie's Kevin Webster) was doing workshops with kids - you would want to know as a parent if there was any risk. How bad would it be if he did something he shouldn't every day until he was in court. As a parent you want someone to intervene - admittedly that is not the job of the press - but no one is saying he is guilty, just been questioned.

 

[The Grockle]

Kill him, cut his balls off.....this scum don't deserve to breath the same air as me... yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Gritt23]

The law is a fecking disgrace, and I can't believe how many cases we have seen like this where the guy has his reputation irrevocably damaged over what? Absolutely NOTHING in the majority of these cases.

I find it just beyond belief that nothing has ever been done to correct this.