Another Court Case For Rape Where The Victims Names

[trt]

are not disclosed, but the accused is!

One is 62 now and it happened to her when she was 15, something is not right here!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540555/Coronation-Street-star-Bill-Roache-court-child-sex-trial.html

[naomi24]

He may have courted publicity, but he hasn't chosen to court defamatory publicity. If it transpires that he's innocent, that has been thrust upon him.

[naomi24]

//How many people wouldn't come forward if they were going to be named in the press? I know I wouldn't... //

If I knew I was right, I would.

[pixie373]

Victims' names aren't disclosed, quite rightly. I also think defendant's names should not be disclosed until and unless they are found guilty.

[ToraToraTora]

So anyone can accuse someone of a heinous crime and the accusee is named bnot the accuser. Even in jno land that must be wrong. Again both or neither, probably neither then we can protect both sides.

[jno]

but that happens to anyone innocent, naomi. That's what trials are for. I was specifically responding to ymb's claim that the media can try you (which they can't, though they do their best sometimes, as in the case of Christopher Jefferies). They give more details of the claims against Roache than they do for most defendants, but that's because he's already better known. As far as the actual charges go, however, he's getting as fair a trial as anyone else would.

[jno]

Even in jno land that must be wrong

This isn't jno land, it's England. Here I am supporting the law of the land and you're grumbling about it. You're not Ralph Miliband, are you?

[Ken4155]

Th question i aski is; do we, the general public, NEED to know an accused's name? Lives can be ruined, even if found 'not guilty'.

[naomi24]

//but that happens to anyone innocent, naomi.//

Precisely the point. It shouldn't. If someone makes an allegation of this nature they should be required to stand up and be counted.

[boxtops]

I'd come forward, if something like this had happened to me, and it had affected me/traumatised me in the way some of these people say it affected their lives. Part of the unsatisfactory aspect of Yew Tree is the JS will never be held accountable for his appalling activity. These men are still alive, why should they get away with it?

[jno]

the argument in this case, Ken, is they've had a deliberate campaign to seek out victims of people in showbiz whose actions may have been uncovered. Savile was never named as an abuser in his lifetime, and look where that's got us. If Roache hadn't been named, and Travis and Harris and all the rest, we'd be none the wiser about what appears to have been at worst a great conspiracy of showbiz silence.

So that's why I think we need to know. I'm not sure any innocent person's life has been ruined but many have been damaged, and that is a possibility that must be borne in mind.

Jefferies is one such - but the problem there was with the press, not the justice system; I think the two are getting a bit confused in this thread

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/23/christopher-jefferies-itv-drama-lost-honour-joanna-yeates

[trt]

The charges against Jim Davies were dropped, but some people will still have thoughts that he did something!

[ToraToraTora]

jno "whats not right" - you said, I said it's not right that one side is named and the other is not, are you saying that in your opinion it is right or are you saying that that's the law end of story, if the latter it does not need saying if the former then tell me how it is fair that an innocent can be blighted at the wim of a specious accuser? and I mean generally,not this particular case. In short, so I don't get a jno cryptic non answer: Leaving aside the legal postion, do you believe that it is right/fair that only one side is named in cases such as these?

[Zeuhl]

All sorts of cases intrude on people's privacy both Defendant and Witnesses; ask Nigella

Perhaps all identities should be banned from publication until after a judgement is given thus preventing weeks of speculation and guilt by association

[ummmm]

Like I said, many people wouldn't come forward if they were going to be named in the press.

Some people don't even report brutal rapes because of the shame they feel.

[mikey4444]

Fred at 16.44 has the answer, pure and simple.

But the real question should be why a suspect's name should disclosed, before he is found guilty or not guilty. If found not guilty, then he will bear the scars of the court case for the rest of his life.

[pixie373]

Trt, Jim Davies didn't deny it. On CBB he said, "it happened 38 years ago!". So, not much of a denial there!

[Ken4155]

I would suggest that there are one or two on this thread who already regard the accused as guilty.

[jno]

TTT, I've already said Yes. I'm agreeing with British law.

[ToraToraTora]

so it's right that one side is named and the other is not, right oh!

[jno]

The charges against Jim Davies were dropped, but some people will still have thoughts that he did something

If you mean Jim Davidson, I don't think he did something. I can't help other people's thoughts, though.