Getting out of hand.

[ofco8]

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion... but my opinion is that the idea that if you want to report someone for committing a crime you have to put yourself in the public eye as being the victim of such an intimate crime is complete nonsense.

Victims of sexual assault are granted lifetime anonymity around the case and I think that's the right thing to do. If you had been raped, would you really report it if you knew that doing so would tell the entire world - everyone you know and will go on to know - that you were a victim? That you had been violated like that?

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.

 

[Acker79]

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]

I think it was called something like 'unlawful sex with a minor' or words to that effect. It's now known as 'statutory rape', how that is different from 'rape' I don't know, but I assume one is consensual and the latter is not.

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.

 

[Rugrat]

What's all this got to do with the play offs?

 

[Bakero]

Stuart Hall stated he would have committed suicide if it were not for the support of his family so these accusations destroy people. As it is it is likely it has taken a few years off his life even if proved innocent.

http://news.sky.com/story/1085935/stuart-hall-admits-sex-assaults-on-children

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

http://news.sky.com/story/1085935/stuart-hall-admits-sex-assaults-on-children

Yes, seen that. Still I believe in anominity still.

 

[shaolinpunk]

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?

 

[Wozza]

[On William Roache]

To bring a rape charge forward from 1967 is frankly absurd. Any rape charge will pretty much destroy a Man's life whether he is found guilty or not.

[On Michael Le Vell]

My gut reaction and it is only a hunch is that this guy is innocent. He looks totally ruined from recent photo's of him.

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]

All these headlines of old sexual triumphs of 40 odd years ago conviniently keep headlines of economic mismanagement by this coalition government off the front pages at the time of local elections. I suspect there is possibly more truth in a blatant case of news management, than any hazy fumblings from 40 years ago.

Convenient or what ?

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Lewis Dunk's football career from being a glittering star has hit the skids. Whatever way , if he is innocent the damage is devastating, most to his mind and ability to carry on his job I would imagine with all this hanging over him. If he is guilty that is the consequence, if he is innocent it is just wrong. Accusers and the accused should both be named.

Yes, seen that. Still I believe in anominity still.

Am I reading this wrong US or are you in a muddle?

 

[Hillian1]

Yes, seen that. Still I believe in anominity still.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

[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.

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.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

[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.

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]

AS MUCH DRAMA AS A SOAP OPERA ................. DEPRESSING AND PREDICTABLE
regards
DR

 

[Commander]

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.

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)

 

[Wozza]

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.

 

[aftershavedave]

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.

hold on there wozza. this bloke is upset about it all though. spare a thought for him won't you?

 

[El Sid]

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.

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]

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.

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.