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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteyt

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 ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteyt

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteyt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catchy

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 ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteyt

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catchy

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