Should The Accused Have Anonymity?
I'm not a fan of Sir Cliff Richard for a few different reasons but I feel sorry for him and the other people who have been wrongly accused under Operation Yew Tree.

Sir Cliff is part of a campaign for people accused of a sex crime to not be named until they are charged. The theory being mud sticks and this is more true of sex crimes than any other,

I have always thought this should be the case and I remember in the early 90s when Craig Charles was accused of raping a prostitute, who was also a friend of his, then she admitted a year later that it didn't happen. It almost ended his career and more importantly Red Dwarf.

People against this campaign say that suspects need to be named to get other 'victims' to come forward but this is nonsense because that can be done once they are charged. You don't suspect someone of a crime then make an appeal for more victims to make a case, someone should be charged based on the complaint.

We have seen people commit suicide because they have been names as a suspect and after their death it's revealed that there was no evidence.

Naming people encourages the police to fish. They can name someone in the hope other 'victims' make complaints and there is a chance one of those could be a stronger case than the original complaint.

The police also say that people making a complaint about sex crimes will be believed from the moment they make the complaint.

I genuinely feel sorry for women and men who are victims of sexual offences and we can have a debate about how the cases are handled but I think people should not be named when they are being investigated only when they are charged.

The only possible exception is if someone is on the run but in that situation they are not helping themself by going on the run.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Not a fan of Cliff, but what happened to him was completely wrong.
It's a tricky one of which there can be no satisfactory answer I reckon.
Imagine being named in a false accusation and plastered all over the linens.

But, as the OP said, if people are named, others could come forward.

Cliffs still a c*nt though. If he was in any way christian, he'd have sacrificed himself through crucifixion as part of live aid.
Of course they bloody should. Not quite the same kind of crime but look at a case like Christopher Jefferies - hounded by the press over something he didn't do. There's a moronic mob mentality which allows any hint of 'there's something a bit off about that one' to turn into a witch hunt. Don't get me started on #MeToo...
If there is an ongoing threat (ie if the person has previous) then no, they should be named. Apart from that scenario they should remain anonymous. Although, if they did kill, rape etc whilst awaiting trial, there would be a major stink kicked up.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)