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

[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