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

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

---------- 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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

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.

YES, YES I WOULD SAY THAT

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.

Very interesting article, apparently the Mail actually has a reporter :o