Should the media be allowed to name accused paedophiles before they're proven guilty?

[Alkaz]

No their names shouldn't be be made public knowledge until they're found guilty. I also think that those who accuse people and then if those people are found innocent, the accuser should be named publicly just like the people they're accusing are being publicly shamed.

[peteyt]

Newspapers seem to cause a lot of problems. I remember when they discovered a possible lead not so long ago on the madeleine mccann case, a former and dead worker. Here is one of the articles http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...worker-2655757 "Madeleine McCann 'kidnapper' was 'hotel worker who snatched her after being sacked then DIED in tractor accident'" is the title but then they go on to talk in the article as him as a possible suspect. Anyone reading this would presume he was guilty by the title and the paper obviously wants you to think that. Surely title's like that shouldn't be allowed and right now the accused isn't even alive to defend himself.

As to naming accused, the big annoyance for me is that victims get total anonymity even if the accused turns out to be innocent. Michael Le Vell was decided innocent due to inconsistencies in the evidence the supposed victim gave and if I remember he knew the parents of the daughter and the lies may have been part of a family feud. Now if they know he is 100 percent innocent shouldn't the victim come out from hiding - she's ruined his life and doesn't seem to be facing many of the consequences

[Brad]

In a perfect world, names would not be released until it's proven, because it does ruin people's reputation, and credibility. Unfortunately we are so far from a perfect world, and the Media will contort and extort the news to fancy themselves.

In reality there are ways to going around this, but media is all about their viewing count to care about humanity.

[lRhyss]

Yes they should, as terrible as accusations like this are then it should be out in the open and we should stay as far away from secret courts as possible. It is the same with courts regarding children/sexual cases in recent years, where by accusers have been able to accuse via video tape..... and I find that appalling. I can understand the arguments for protecting people, but at the end of the day if you are on trial for something so serious then you deserve and should have the right to look your accuser in the face.

And the same for secret courts with this, it's scary how people are willing to move away from an open traditionally English courts system to the more Europeanised courting system which is less free and has less protections.... bring in secret courts and trials for this, and you'll end up having it spread to other areas too: from terror charges to rape charges. The media are a key counter-weight to power of HM courts/Police.

Imagine this scenario:

You've just set off from home, you're going to give your friend his wallet which he left at home when he went to work. Most of the way you're following this young girl (not underage young, maybe like 19-21), you check out her bum a few times, like any man would, nothing out of the ordinary.

When you reach your friends place of work, you need to enter by the staff door, around the back. It also seems the girl you were following is going around the back alley, you don't know why, but maybe she's going home or she's going to buy drugs. She noticed you following her, so she smiled and said hi before walking off around the corner of the alley.

You go into the work place, drop the wallet into his locker without getting noticed by anyone, and then come back out into the alley. Then you hear a scream, you run around the corner to notice the girl you were following half naked and blindfolded (Just been raped), you walk up to help, but as you reach down and grab her trousers to put them back on her, a policeman comes running around the corner.

Obviously you look guilty at this moment, also the girl saw you going down the same alley as her, not knowing why. She was blindfolded, so she may have not seen the person that raped her, so putting you right in the firing line. Not only this but a CCTV camera saw you turn down the alley behind the girl, 10 minutes before you were caught. You didn't rape her, but, with no-one seeing you in your friends work place, the policeman finding you with the girls trousers in your hand and her half naked and blindfolded, and then having the girl's last real memory being you following her into the alley... It really does seem like it was you.

How would you then like to be named, spread over all the local papers, news shows etc... How would your family feel? Your friends? Your girlfriend (or boyfriend)? How would you then feel, walking down the street to the shop? Everyone would notice you, possibly shout abuse, maybe even beat you up or something.

I know that's like a really unlikely situation, but it could very well happen to anyone.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How would you then like to be named, spread over all the local papers, news shows etc... How would your family feel? Your friends? Your girlfriend (or boyfriend)? How would you then feel, walking down the street to the shop? Everyone would notice you, possibly shout abuse, maybe even beat you up or something.

I know that's like a really unlikely situation, but it could very well happen to anyone.

But I do not claim my system or the legal system are perfect, or that such a situation is desirable. I merely make the point, and justified point, that moving away from common law and an open legal system can be very dangerous and are less desirable than the present system.

Whilst I support a strong justice system, I don't support a justice system that is like one that a regime would use which is why I was and am opposed to 90-day detention without trial, as well as 28 days without trial: 24 hours is the maximum in my opinion. State force must be limited.

[GommeInc]

But I do not claim my system or the legal system are perfect, or that such a situation is desirable. I merely make the point, and justified point, that moving away from common law and an open legal system can be very dangerous and are less desirable than the present system.

Whilst I support a strong justice system, I don't support a justice system that is like one that a regime would use which is why I was and am opposed to 90-day detention without trial, as well as 28 days without trial: 24 hours is the maximum in my opinion. State force must be limited.

It's not really the legal system. In this case, it was the media as the case hasn't even come to court. The legal system is almost entirely irrelevant to the case of Cliff Richard being named, and was also the case for William Roache. The individuals should only be named when they go through the court system, which they will because that's how the court system works. The media throwing accusations before any sort of court action or proof has even been made is nothing more than a witch hunt to sell papers, which is disgusting.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's not really the legal system. In this case, it was the media as the case hasn't even come to court. The legal system is almost entirely irrelevant to the case of Cliff Richard being named, and was also the case for William Roache. The individuals should only be named when they go through the court system, which they will because that's how the court system works. The media throwing accusations before any sort of court action or proof has even been made is nothing more than a witch hunt to sell papers, which is disgusting.

All the media did was report what was happening, the Police telling the media beforehand of course was wrong and that isn't allowed as far as I am aware... but should the media want to report that somebody has been hauled in to face questioning then they should be able to do so - if they make anything up in such an area, they face a huge libel bill. The French like to gag their media, I don't want to gag ours.

We know the system itself cannot be trusted anyway: see Westminster pedophile scandal cover up, Jimmy Savile and Rotherham cover up. Besides, if you wish to gag the newspapers in such matters you'd have to push for heavier policing of the internet as most of this stuff is rumoured on the internet years and months before it actually happened: hence why I knew about the Rotherham Islamic pedophilia scandal ages ago.

[GommeInc]

All the media did was report what was happening, the Police telling the media beforehand of course was wrong and that isn't allowed as far as I am aware... but should the media want to report that somebody has been hauled in to face questioning then they should be able to do so - if they make anything up in such an area, they face a huge libel bill. The French like to gag their media, I don't want to gag ours.

We know the system itself cannot be trusted anyway: see Westminster pedophile scandal cover up, Jimmy Savile and Rotherham cover up. Besides, if you wish to gag the newspapers in such matters you'd have to push for heavier policing of the internet as most of this stuff is rumoured on the internet years and months before it actually happened: hence why I knew about the Rotherham Islamic pedophilia scandal ages ago.

Hence it wasn't really the legal system It's still as open as ever. The issue here is with an over-active media making conclusions before any investigation had been made, which is never a good idea. I prefer hearing about an alleged paedophile/criminal when enough evidence has been gathered to see it put through court, than some imbecile behind a computer typing it up for gullible readers for profit getting them worked up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hence it wasn't really the legal system It's still as open as ever. The issue here is with an over-active media making conclusions before any investigation had been made, which is never a good idea. I prefer hearing about an alleged paedophile/criminal when enough evidence has been gathered to see it put through court, than some imbecile behind a computer typing it up for gullible readers for profit getting them worked up.

That would be the case if our Police, social services, and government weren't bent and corrupt.

[peteyt]

if they make anything up in such an area, they face a huge libel bill. The French like to gag their media, I don't want to gag ours.

Yet they seem to be able to create extremely misleading headlines and get away with that. The example in my previous post is a prime example of this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...worker-2655757 "Madeleine McCann 'kidnapper' was 'hotel worker who snatched her after being sacked then DIED in tractor accident"

The title there suggests that this is the killer/kidnapper - there's no mention that its only a possibility in the actual title, that's in the article itself. It's like having a title saying Cliff Richard Abuses Boys rather than Cliff Richard accused of abusing boys - obviously the first is a lot more effective and shocking but I hate when possibilites are made out to be facts like that as a way to simply sell more papers.