Should Those Accused Have Anonymity?

[ToraToraTora]

http://news.sky.com/story/sir-cliff-urged-to-drop-campaign-for-anonymity-for-sex-offence-suspects-10620627
Clearly it's currently wrong that anonymous accusers can wreck a life with impunity so I would back anonymity for both sides.

[ToraToraTora]

No jno I don't want super injunctions, I was just saying that the mechanism exists to keep anonyimity for both sides and should be used equally. Mikey, Saville is what caused all this, many were not believed at that time, now everyone is believed so we have swung the other way. Now the police will ruin the life of anyone on the whim of anyone without even the slightest pre check. Thus we have charlatans a plenty hoping for a pay off.

[jourdain2]

Andy 11.56 ...... I'll bring the champagne!

[ummmm]

No.

My abuser was found out buy his others victims giving my name.

[ladybirder]

I'm with ummmm on this.

My reason is you think no-one will believe you but when you see someone else has accused your abuser the relief that his name is out there and you aren't the only one is life changing.

I also think there should be serious consequences if it can be proved that an accuser is not telling the truth, even before the case gets to court. And I don't rule out a prison sentence.

[ummmm]

The problem is sexual abuse is hard to prove so they need more victims to come forward.

[naomi24]

//when you see someone else has accused your abuser the relief that his name is out there //

Fine - if the abuser is an abuser.

[ummmm]

I don't think many people lie about it, especially child abuse.

The dilemma is more to do with celebs as some people assume the accusers are motivated by money.

[naomi24]

When someone is falsely accused and named, he too becomes a victim – as do members of his family. His reputation is destroyed - and imagine his children having to face their classmates every day when everyone ‘knows’ their father is an abuser.

[ummmm]

Just because someone isn't prosecuted doesn't mean they are not guilty. It just means there isn't enough evidence.

[naomi24]

Ummmm, It doesn't mean they are guilty either but nevertheless people will be saying exactly what you've said. The seed of suspicion is planted.

[ladybirder]

Imagine if one of those abused by Savile had gone to the police accusing him of rape, and the police took that person's accusation seriously. This appears in the papers and 10, 20, 30, 40 ... others come forward because they now realise they have a chance of being believed. Naming just one person would have the effect of bringing justice for so many who otherwise wouldn't have received it had that person not been named. I don't think it is black and white because to be accused when you are innocent and have your name splashed all over the news must be truly devastating. However I do think it's better than the alternative because naming an accused and other victims coming forward can and does make the difference of whether he faces justice or not.
Not saying it's perfect and I expect lots of people to disagree with me.