By BenS - 19 Jul 18 7:54 AM
For historical cases, I get the public naming, to see if there are more alleged victims. It's not as simple to say "you should have reported it at the time" because in the past, complainants were routinely ignored by the police or had undue pressure put on them - by the police and/or the organisation to which the alleged offender belonged - to drop the allegations. However, in the post-Savile climate, this would never happen anymore. Complainants are always respected and believed and allegations are investigated thoroughly, leading to some monsters being caught (Clifford) and other innocent people being dragged through the mud, sometimes wrongly convicted and other times charges dropped/not charged but publicly, mentally and irrevocably damaged (Gambaccini, Sir Cliff).
Therefore, I believe now is the time to make it illegal to name anyone accused of any crime (until conviction) BUT that allegations dating from (plucking a year out of thin air) pre-2010 be exempt from this, as the climate was not previously supportive for victims making a valid allegation. In modern-day UK, this is no longer applicable, and you can report sexual abuse in confidence, without being judged by the police and your allegation will be investigated thoroughly. So there is absolutely no reason for this public naming thing to still apply now, though I do understand why it is necessary for older cases when victims previously could not have their complaints properly dealt with and respected.
|
By AB2014 - 19 Jul 18 8:59 AM
+xFor historical cases, I get the public naming, to see if there are more alleged victims. It's not as simple to say "you should have reported it at the time" because in the past, complainants were routinely ignored by the police or had undue pressure put on them - by the police and/or the organisation to which the alleged offender belonged - to drop the allegations. However, in the post-Savile climate, this would never happen anymore. Complainants are always respected and believed and allegations are investigated thoroughly, leading to some monsters being caught (Clifford) and other innocent people being dragged through the mud, sometimes wrongly convicted and other times charges dropped/not charged but publicly, mentally and irrevocably damaged (Gambaccini, Sir Cliff). Therefore, I believe now is the time to make it illegal to name anyone accused of any crime (until conviction) BUT that allegations dating from (plucking a year out of thin air) pre-2010 be exempt from this, as the climate was not previously supportive for victims making a valid allegation. In modern-day UK, this is no longer applicable, and you can report sexual abuse in confidence, without being judged by the police and your allegation will be investigated thoroughly. So there is absolutely no reason for this public naming thing to still apply now, though I do understand why it is necessary for older cases when victims previously could not have their complaints properly dealt with and respected.
I think the police should have taken a harder line at the time. Many years ago, I worked for a well-known company that was being investigated by the police. The company started leaning on staff to tell them what the police had asked them and what they had said. I mentioned this to the police, who were very quick to remind the company that monitoring a police enquiry is a criminal offence. If the journalist had information, he was at liberty to publish it and be damned, but there was no right to supervise the raid, and if they'd published in advance, it could be seen as interfering with a police enquiry. Mind you, South Yorkshire Police do seem good at attracting bad publicity these days.
|
By Yankee - 18 Jul 18 1:57 PM
Glad to hear the High Court verdict today.
I understand both sides of the anonymity debate with regard publicity before arrest or before trial, particularly in sexual offences cases. it's a very fine balance between protecting someone until proven guilty and using publicity to encourage other victims to come forward. No one wants another Saville.
This situation, however, goes far beyond the anonymity debate. This was pure sensationalism based on the fact that the person in question was a celebrity and raises serious moral questions about the collusion of the police and media.
Really disgusted that the BBC announced they are considering an appeal.
|
|