Should the government prevent the naming of the accused until proven guilty?

[peteyt]

With Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster in the popular ITV soap Coronation Street just been proven innocent of rape charges made against him it begs an ongoing question - should the government prevent the naming of the accused until they are proven guilty?

Currently by law, papers are not allowed to name the person making the charges apparently even if they are proven to be falsified. However like many, I believe this is incredibly unfair for the actual accused who can be legally named straight away even before an actual trial.

The problem with this is anything like this can be very damaging. Michael Le Vell for example may be 100 percent innocent but there will most definitely be some people who will still believe the wrong verdict was made, the point is even if proven innocent, these accusations can easily stick and cause damage. This can be particularly hard for those in the public's eye, who need a strong and friendly image.

What do people think? Do you think the system needs to change or do you find it works well already?

[lawrawrrr]

If they weren't named OFFICIALLY people would still find out. Naming of the accused actually lets people step forwards - if it was just a member of the community then hearing on the news that this person is going to trial might help produce more witnesses or victims.

[peteyt]

If they weren't named OFFICIALLY people would still find out. Naming of the accused actually lets people step forwards - if it was just a member of the community then hearing on the news that this person is going to trial might help produce more witnesses or victims.

For normal people yes it could help but famous people are seen daily at times and don't need bad press. Obviously there's always a chance of leaks yeah, but I do think they should still keep it private and at least attempt to prevent leaks or at least name the apparent victim if its discovered they where lying.

[lawrawrrr]

For normal people yes it could help but famous people are seen daily at times and don't need bad press. Obviously there's always a chance of leaks yeah, but I do think they should still keep it private and at least attempt to prevent leaks or at least name the apparent victim if its discovered they where lying.

You can't really change laws depending on an individuals 'fame' though. It can be just as harmful to a regular person as a famous person to be defamed as Michael La Vell (sp) has.

Naming a victim - even if they are assumed to be lying - is the worst idea ever. Do you know why witness protection was put in place? Why they take such care to look after witnesses and victims? Can you imagine the abuse she would receive if she were to be named?

[Kardan]

You can't really change laws depending on an individuals 'fame' though. It can be just as harmful to a regular person as a famous person to be defamed as Michael La Vell (sp) has.

Naming a victim - even if they are assumed to be lying - is the worst idea ever. Do you know why witness protection was put in place? Why they take such care to look after witnesses and victims? Can you imagine the abuse she would receive if she were to be named?

Likewise, I'm sure the abuse that Michael got, and will get, is also a terrible thing.

[lawrawrrr]

Likewise, I'm sure the abuse that Michael got, and will get, is also a terrible thing.

But he can go back to those people and say, well I was proved innocent - so that abuse he can legally rise above.

[Kardan]

But he can go back to those people and say, well I was proved innocent - so that abuse he can legally rise above.

'Legally' rising above any abuse won't make the abuse any better. Try telling that to George Zimmerman :P

[lawrawrrr]

'Legally' rising above any abuse won't make the abuse any better. Try telling that to George Zimmerman :P

Yeah but if we take the two people involved:

Le Vell: accused of a horrible crime but is INNOCENT of that

Victim: accused a man of a horrible crime and is branded a LIAR by the judge


Le Vell knows he did nothing wrong, whereas the judge has decided that the girl HAS done something wrong. Le Vell will get abuse, be called a child molester, etc etc, but at the end of the day, he's in the right - whereas the girl is in the wrong, so if abuse was directed at her, it would be more 'real', for want of a better word.

[FlyingJesus]

But he can go back to those people and say, well I was proved innocent - so that abuse he can legally rise above.

Accused of a crime so bad that even in the worst prisons the inmates attack and kill perpetrators because they're viewed as evil: whatever, rise above it!
Lied about a serious issue and put someone else's entire life and livelihood in jeopardy: deserves anonymity and no charge, duhhhhh

And to seriously suggest that "knowing he's right" negates all of that is ridiculous

[lawrawrrr]

Accused of a crime so bad that even in the worst prisons the inmates attack and kill perpetrators because they're viewed as evil: whatever, rise above it!
Lied about a serious issue and put someone else's entire life and livelihood in jeopardy: deserves anonymity and no charge, duhhhhh

er i didn't say that... i believe that the girl who lied should be punished for what she did and she will almost definitely be sued for defamation against le vell and charged with perverting the court of justice

but yes victims and witnesses deserve anonymity/protection for their own sakes


and le vell has a clear name in the eyes of the law, he has no reason to care what he was accused of because he cannot be discriminated because of it because he is innocent (and if he is discriminated then he can sue!!) - who even brought up prisoners and inmates???

[Kardan]

er i didn't say that... i believe that the girl who lied should be punished for what she did and she will almost definitely be sued for defamation against le vell and charged with perverting the court of justice

but yes victims and witnesses deserve anonymity/protection for their own sakes


and le vell has a clear name in the eyes of the law, he has no reason to care what he was accused of because he cannot be discriminated because of it because he is innocent (and if he is discriminated then he can sue!!) - who even brought up prisoners and inmates???

As has been said, him being right and being clear in the eyes of the law isn't good enough for people, and people will continue to abuse him.

Look at OJ Simpson for example, he was cleared. And George Zimmerman... And Michael Jackson...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Secret justice and secret courts ought to be opposed by all - they're a tool for tyranny.

It's just how I oppose all this video evidence etc for children, i'm sorry but - if you are being accused by rape or anything like that, you deserve and must have those accusing you being able to look you in the face because anybody can make accusations behind a screen.

[FlyingJesus]

er i didn't say that... i believe that the girl who lied should be punished for what she did and she will almost definitely be sued for defamation against le vell and charged with perverting the court of justice

This is generally not the case, especially with regards to false rape/paedophilia claims. Those who cry wolf typically get - if anything at all - community service sentencing for something that (because of the environment of high security prisons) puts those they claim against in very real danger of actually becoming victims themselves, and then we call it justice


but yes victims and witnesses deserve anonymity/protection for their own sakes

Genuine ones, perhaps, but why should that extend to people who purposely fabricate charges and lie in court? Such people are not victims or witnesses because no crime occurred to be a victim or witness of


and le vell has a clear name in the eyes of the law, he has no reason to care what he was accused of because he cannot be discriminated because of it because he is innocent (and if he is discriminated then he can sue!!) - who even brought up prisoners and inmates???

I brought up prisons and inmates because guess where you go if you're found guilty of serious crimes? Not sure how you missed that one. That aside, how you can possibly think that a person being cleared in court means that it's all easily put behind them and they'll never face any consequences is beyond me. This sort of thing goes on ones permanent criminal record even with cases like this where no crime is found to have happened at all, and perhaps Le Vell will go back to the screen but most people who are falsely accused are average Joes who will forever more be branded a potential paedophile at any job, accommodation, and identification form they ever apply for - despite being as innocent as Jesus' darling mother

[Inseriousity.]

I'm in two minds. A teacher accused of a similar crime would never work again even if he's later found to be innocent so I can see the arguments for. On the other hand, Savile's case was kept behind closed doors and hushed up because there was only one victim but if they'd gone public with it then those other people could've stepped forward and perhaps some justice could've been done before his death.

In Le Vell's case the jury believed she lied and reached a not guilty verdict so unless she confesses that her side of the story was a fabrication after all, is that really a solid ground to start perjury/contempt of court/whatever it is called proceedings? Would they get a conviction based purely on a jury's decision that it was not true if the girl remains adamant that her version of events is?

[lawrawrrr]

This is generally not the case, especially with regards to false rape/paedophilia claims. Those who cry wolf typically get - if anything at all - community service sentencing for something that (because of the environment of high security prisons) puts those they claim against in very real danger of actually becoming victims themselves, and then we call it justice



Genuine ones, perhaps, but why should that extend to people who purposely fabricate charges and lie in court? Such people are not victims or witnesses because no crime occurred to be a victim or witness of



I brought up prisons and inmates because guess where you go if you're found guilty of serious crimes? Not sure how you missed that one. That aside, how you can possibly think that a person being cleared in court means that it's all easily put behind them and they'll never face any consequences is beyond me. This sort of thing goes on ones permanent criminal record even with cases like this where no crime is found to have happened at all, and perhaps Le Vell will go back to the screen but most people who are falsely accused are average Joes who will forever more be branded a potential paedophile at any job, accommodation, and identification form they ever apply for - despite being as innocent as Jesus' darling mother

He could press further charges. Which I believe should happen, regardless of what does happen, I believe the girl should be punished for what she did.

I don't see why everyone seems to be calling him a paedo still because he's literally not and he cannot be fired or anything for that excuse he is literally not. He's innocent on his criminal record, so why is that a problem?! I don't pretend to understand the law in this case but it just seems absolutely ludicrous to brand this man for life when he did nothing wrong.

Mike, why on EARTH wouldn't a teacher be able to work after being found innocent? If a student felt vicious they could go around telling people that every teacher in the school but they wouldn't all be fired - only the ones found guilty, suuuuurrreeely......??


on phone xx

[Kardan]

He could press further charges. Which I believe should happen, regardless of what does happen, I believe the girl should be punished for what she did.

I don't see why everyone seems to be calling him a paedo still because he's literally not and he cannot be fired or anything for that excuse he is literally not. He's innocent on his criminal record, so why is that a problem?! I don't pretend to understand the law in this case but it just seems absolutely ludicrous to brand this man for life when he did nothing wrong.

Mike, why on EARTH wouldn't a teacher be able to work after being found innocent? If a student felt vicious they could go around telling people that every teacher in the school but they wouldn't all be fired - only the ones found guilty, suuuuurrreeely......??


on phone xx

Because people judge people.

Who would you rather hire? A teacher with no issues, or a teacher that has been accused of being a paedo by numerous students. You're right that being cleared by the courts means they've done nothing bad legally... But that doesn't stop people discriminating.

You type 'Was mi' into google, and the first search results suggested is 'Was Michael Jackson guilty?'. We all know he wasn't... But why is that still a top search result so many years later?

---------- Post added 12-09-2013 at 12:04 PM ----------


I'm in two minds. A teacher accused of a similar crime would never work again even if he's later found to be innocent so I can see the arguments for. On the other hand, Savile's case was kept behind closed doors and hushed up because there was only one victim but if they'd gone public with it then those other people could've stepped forward and perhaps some justice could've been done before his death.

In Le Vell's case the jury believed she lied and reached a not guilty verdict so unless she confesses that her side of the story was a fabrication after all, is that really a solid ground to start perjury/contempt of court/whatever it is called proceedings? Would they get a conviction based purely on a jury's decision that it was not true if the girl remains adamant that her version of events is?

I totally agree with you. If you just look at the point being brought up, and don't look at negative aspects, then those accused of rape should definitely get anonymity. Sadly though, the negative aspects are pretty significant, as you said, giving anonymity for Savile meant that it only came out after he died. There is no easy answer.

[lawrawrrr]

Because people judge people.

Who would you rather hire? A teacher with no issues, or a teacher that has been accused of being a paedo by numerous students. You're right that being cleared by the courts means they've done nothing bad legally... But that doesn't stop people discriminating.

You type 'Was mi' into google, and the first search results suggested is 'Was Michael Jackson guilty?'. We all know he wasn't... But why is that still a top search result so many years later?

If a teacher was discriminated because of an accusation that isn't fair and the employer can, would and should be punished for that.


on phone xx

[Kardan]

If a teacher was discriminated because of an accusation that isn't fair and the employer can, would and should be punished for that.


on phone xx

But who is to say that the teacher didn't get employed for other reasons? Surely if you have two teachers, one accused and one not, and they hire the non-accused... Can't they just tell the accused teacher that they had other reasons for not hiring them? What proof would there be of discrimination?

[lawrawrrr]

But who is to say that the teacher didn't get employed for other reasons? Surely if you have two teachers, one accused and one not, and they hire the non-accused... Can't they just tell the accused teacher that they had other reasons for not hiring them? What proof would there be of discrimination?

If there is literally no difference other than the accusation it's pretty obvious. If someone did believe it was just because of that then they can take them to court and it would be up to a jury to decide if it was discrimination.


on phone xx

[peteyt]

er i didn't say that... i believe that the girl who lied should be punished for what she did and she will almost definitely be sued for defamation against le vell and charged with perverting the court of justice

but yes victims and witnesses deserve anonymity/protection for their own sakes


and le vell has a clear name in the eyes of the law, he has no reason to care what he was accused of because he cannot be discriminated because of it because he is innocent (and if he is discriminated then he can sue!!) - who even brought up prisoners and inmates???

But why should she be protected? Fair enough if she was actually a victim but if she's been proven to be lying then she should be branded a liar, if anything, it might show people the law doesn't make it easy for people found lying. Like people have said, Michael Le Vell will have this over his head probably for life now and there will be those who will probably still look down on him. Why should he if he's innocent get all this but the actual one who lied get away with hardly any punishment and no harassments like he has had?


Secret justice and secret courts ought to be opposed by all - they're a tool for tyranny.

It's just how I oppose all this video evidence etc for children, i'm sorry but - if you are being accused by rape or anything like that, you deserve and must have those accusing you being able to look you in the face because anybody can make accusations behind a screen.

What would you do with the apparent victim who turns out to be a liar then? Obviously private court cases could do bad, but right now it seems to be with those accused of rape guilty until proven innocent when it should be innocent until proven guilty.


I'm in two minds. A teacher accused of a similar crime would never work again even if he's later found to be innocent so I can see the arguments for. On the other hand, Savile's case was kept behind closed doors and hushed up because there was only one victim but if they'd gone public with it then those other people could've stepped forward and perhaps some justice could've been done before his death.

In Le Vell's case the jury believed she lied and reached a not guilty verdict so unless she confesses that her side of the story was a fabrication after all, is that really a solid ground to start perjury/contempt of court/whatever it is called proceedings? Would they get a conviction based purely on a jury's decision that it was not true if the girl remains adamant that her version of events is?
Apparently with Savile it wasn't just one person, it was multiple people and from what I've read it was common knowledge between a lot of people. It appeared a lot knew he was up to a lot of bad stuff but no one would bring it forward due to different reasons.

Also from what I've read it sounds like with Michael le vell, the accuser made a few conflicting reports which is what helped them get to the innocent ruling

[Kardan]

If there is literally no difference other than the accusation it's pretty obvious. If someone did believe it was just because of that then they can take them to court and it would be up to a jury to decide if it was discrimination.


on phone xx

Ahh... so basically everytime the accused teacher doesn't get hired they can claim discrimination?

Does that mean if there's no difference between me and another person going for a job, I can claim for discrimination against me being ginger? :P

I highly doubt that the two people would be exactly the same, and even if they were - how would the courts prove that, and how would the accused teacher know he was discriminated against by knowing the other candidate was of an equal standard of him.

[lawrawrrr]

But why should she be protected? Fair enough if she was actually a victim but if she's been proven to be lying then she should be branded a liar, if anything, it might show people the law doesn't make it easy for people found lying. Like people have said, Michael Le Vell will have this over his head probably for life now and there will be those who will probably still look down on him. Why should he if he's innocent get all this but the actual one who lied get away with hardly any punishment and no harassments like he has had?


If you actually read any of my posts you'd realise I agree strongly that the girl should receive punishment for what she did, and noone actually knows what she will get so it's unfair to say 'hardly any punishment'.

My point is only that if you named all victims and protected the accused then it would be a risk to the victim's life - especially in a high profile case like this.

If the case was to be re-opened then she would be at at even higher risk - increasingly so if he was to be found guilty the second time.


on phone xx

---------- Post added 12-09-2013 at 12:13 PM ----------


Ahh... so basically everytime the accused teacher doesn't get hired they can claim discrimination?

Does that mean if there's no difference between me and another person going for a job, I can claim for discrimination against me being ginger? :P

I highly doubt that the two people would be exactly the same, and even if they were - how would the courts prove that, and how would the accused teacher know he was discriminated against by knowing the other candidate was of an equal standard of him.

If you believe that the reason you didn't get hired was because of your hair colour, and you can create a reasonable case out of it then, yes, you could. It's up to lawyers to decide whether you've got a reasonable enough case though.

Well employee discrimination is a more common thing than you'd maybe think and they manage to get answers out of a jury for that....


on phone xx

[peteyt]

If you actually read any of my posts you'd realise I agree strongly that the girl should receive punishment for what she did, and noone actually knows what she will get so it's unfair to say 'hardly any punishment'.

My point is only that if you named all victims and protected the accused then it would be a risk to the victim's life - especially in a high profile case like this.

If the case was to be re-opened then she would be at at even higher risk - increasingly so if he was to be found guilty the second time.

Which I did read but my point is that by not naming the victim but naming the now apparent accused, it's the same, and that he could be put in danger.

My point is it should work both ways. I just highly disagree that it's fair to name someone who turns out to be innocent but then to protect someone else who actually is guilty they should either name both or protect both. Sadly the law seems to go in favour more to the accusers when it should be balanced

[lawrawrrr]

Which I did read but my point is that by not naming the victim but naming the now apparent accused, it's the same, and that he could be put in danger.

My point is it should work both ways. I just highly disagree that it's fair to name someone who turns out to be innocent but then to protect someone else who actually is guilty they should either name both or protect both. Sadly the law seems to go in favour more to the accusers when it should be balanced

But by naming the accused other people are made willing to step forward with their testimonies. If it was anonymous the person may be less likely to be found guilty even if they are.


on phone xx

[peteyt]

But by naming the accused other people are made willing to step forward with their testimonies. If it was anonymous the person may be less likely to be found guilty even if they are.

The problem i famous people are always going to be targeted. By making the case known you could also risk other people attempting to lie as well. Obviously each way has negatives but I'd rather see a balanced system and not one favouring one party over another

[lawrawrrr]

The problem i famous people are always going to be targeted. By making the case known you could also risk other people attempting to lie as well. Obviously each way has negatives but I'd rather see a balanced system and not one favouring one party over another

Normal people are probably targeted too, just on less of a national level. I believe that the accusers are more at danger whether the accused is found guilty or not and it's the government's job to protect those at risk.

[Catchy]

If you actually read any of my posts you'd realise I agree strongly that the girl should receive punishment for what she did, and noone actually knows what she will get so it's unfair to say 'hardly any punishment'.

My point is only that if you named all victims and protected the accused then it would be a risk to the victim's life - especially in a high profile case like this.

If the case was to be re-opened then she would be at at even higher risk - increasingly so if he was to be found guilty the second time.


on phone xx

---------- Post added 12-09-2013 at 12:13 PM ----------



If you believe that the reason you didn't get hired was because of your hair colour, and you can create a reasonable case out of it then, yes, you could. It's up to lawyers to decide whether you've got a reasonable enough case though.

Well employee discrimination is a more common thing than you'd maybe think and they manage to get answers out of a jury for that....


on phone xx

Laura... I dunno what's hard to understand about what Kardan; is trying to say lmao! Basically if you went for a job, you wouldn't have any idea how the other candidates interviewed. Therefore if you wasn't to get the job, you'd just simply be told there were stronger candidates at interview. That's not discrimination and even if you feel it is, all the employer has to say is that other candidates were better suited to the role.

[lawrawrrr]

Laura... I dunno what's hard to understand about what Kardan; is trying to say lmao! Basically if you went for a job, you wouldn't have any idea how the other candidates interviewed. Therefore if you wasn't to get the job, you'd just simply be told there were stronger candidates at interview. That's not discrimination and even if you feel it is, all the employer has to say is that other candidates were better suited to the role.

No I do understand completely - but if you believe it was discrimination (by the way they acted in an interview, by the diversity of people they employ) then it is possible to investigate this.

Happened at my old school, happened at Hollister or A & F, one of those places recently, was pretty big in the news. So it does happen.


on phone xx

---------- Post added 12-09-2013 at 01:37 PM ----------


But why should she be protected? Fair enough if she was actually a victim but if she's been proven to be lying then she should be branded a liar, if anything, it might show people the law doesn't make it easy for people found lying. Like people have said, Michael Le Vell will have this over his head probably for life now and there will be those who will probably still look down on him. Why should he if he's innocent get all this but the actual one who lied get away with hardly any punishment and no harassments like he has had?



What would you do with the apparent victim who turns out to be a liar then? Obviously private court cases could do bad, but right now it seems to be with those accused of rape guilty until proven innocent when it should be innocent until proven guilty.


Apparently with Savile it wasn't just one person, it was multiple people and from what I've read it was common knowledge between a lot of people. It appeared a lot knew he was up to a lot of bad stuff but no one would bring it forward due to different reasons.

Also from what I've read it sounds like with Michael le vell, the accuser made a few conflicting reports which is what helped them get to the innocent ruling

Because she's still a human being who is at a very big risk.

And for the LAST TIME I DO THINK SHE SHOULD BE PUNISHED JUST NOT IN THE PUBLIC EYE BECAUSE IT IS A THREAT TO HER LIFE


on phone xx

[Catchy]

No I do understand completely - but if you believe it was discrimination (by the way they acted in an interview, by the diversity of people they employ) then it is possible to investigate this.

Happened at my old school, happened at Hollister or A & F, one of those places recently, was pretty big in the news. So it does happen.


on phone xx

Yah it does happen, not saying it doesn't but I'd say most of the time most people probably wouldn't think twice about it really.

[lawrawrrr]

Yah it does happen, not saying it doesn't but I'd say most of the time most people probably wouldn't think twice about it really.

oh yeah i totally agree but im just saying the possibility is there if someone feels they have been discriminated for something that either didn't happen or that they can't help

[Kardan]

No I do understand completely - but if you believe it was discrimination (by the way they acted in an interview, by the diversity of people they employ) then it is possible to investigate this.

Happened at my old school, happened at Hollister or A & F, one of those places recently, was pretty big in the news. So it does happen.


on phone xx

---------- Post added 12-09-2013 at 01:37 PM ----------



Because she's still a human being who is at a very big risk.

And for the LAST TIME I DO THINK SHE SHOULD BE PUNISHED JUST NOT IN THE PUBLIC EYE BECAUSE IT IS A THREAT TO HER LIFE


on phone xx

"Can I just ask before I start this interview, how many people do you employ that have been accused of paedophilia but have been cleared?"

[lawrawrrr]

"Can I just ask before I start this interview, how many people do you employ that have been accused of paedophilia but have been cleared?"

Well that comment was more aimed at physical diversity, it's pretty obvious when you're not employed because of a previous accusation, when in the interview they ask about it and they would probably act off or show some sort of obvious facial expression which might lead you to believe that's the sole reason they haven't hired you

[Kardan]

Well that comment was more aimed at physical diversity, it's pretty obvious when you're not employed because of a previous accusation, when in the interview they ask about it and they would probably act off or show some sort of obvious facial expression which might lead you to believe that's the sole reason they haven't hired you

Never doubted that :P But being accused of such things as rape is a completely different thing. For example when people want to cast for roles they'll have certain people in mind and start calling peoples agents... Would anyone even consider Michael now? Nobody wants any negative press on the things they create by hiring people that have a bad 'reputation'.

[lawrawrrr]

Never doubted that :P But being accused of such things as rape is a completely different thing. For example when people want to cast for roles they'll have certain people in mind and start calling peoples agents... Would anyone even consider Michael now? Nobody wants any negative press on the things they create by hiring people that have a bad 'reputation'.

It depends on the execs I guess. I know why people will say it but he doesn't have a bad reputation because he hasn't done anything? He TECHNICALLY shouldn't have any worse a reputation than anyone else.

It could actually work in his favour; if the press are kind enough and ITV work them well, he could be depicted as the innocent martyr who suffered because of a lying girl...

[FlyingJesus]

I don't see why everyone seems to be calling him a paedo still because he's literally not and he cannot be fired or anything for that excuse he is literally not. He's innocent on his criminal record, so why is that a problem?! I don't pretend to understand the law in this case but it just seems absolutely ludicrous to brand this man for life when he did nothing wrong.

Michael Jackson, enough said. Yes it's ridiculous but it's the current state of affairs


I believe that the accusers are more at danger whether the accused is found guilty or not and it's the government's job to protect those at risk.

Someone who maliciously lies in court is in more danger than the person they lie about, whose permanent record is then tainted for life, whose friends and family often desert them, who are named and made open to vigilante violence, and who faces the very real possibility of prison time if the liar has a good story?


And for the LAST TIME I DO THINK SHE SHOULD BE PUNISHED JUST NOT IN THE PUBLIC EYE BECAUSE IT IS A THREAT TO HER LIFE

Again, really not sure why you think that someone committing a series of very serious criminal acts (false witness, perversion of justice, slander, etc.) is more deserving of protection than a totally innocent person whose life they've targeted. You are suggesting saving the criminals and leaving the innocent to suffer


It could actually work in his favour; if the press are kind enough and ITV work them well, he could be depicted as the innocent martyr who suffered because of a lying girl...

Nope throughout the entire case his whole life was investigated and it was made public that he had an affair and drink problems and all sorts of other judgements on his character

[Kardan]

It depends on the execs I guess. I know why people will say it but he doesn't have a bad reputation because he hasn't done anything? He TECHNICALLY shouldn't have any worse a reputation than anyone else.

It could actually work in his favour; if the press are kind enough and ITV work them well, he could be depicted as the innocent martyr who suffered because of a lying girl...

Thing is with reputation it isn't about what you've done, it's about what people think you've done. Would you say the person with the highest reputation on the forum is the best person on the forum? :P

Basically, there's not really a positive spin that can be put on being non-guilty in a public rape case, people will still view you badly.

[FlyingJesus]

YES, YES I WOULD SAY THAT

[dbgtz]

I'd say yes but it would never work. Remember all of those (super) injunctions that worked so well?

Perhaps if tabloids didn't explode stories to make it seem like people are guilty before even reaching court there might not be as much of a problem.

[FlyingJesus]

Very interesting article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2417412/Michael-Le-Vell-WHEN-men-pre-conviction-anonymity-rape-trials.html), apparently the Mail actually has a reporter :o