Surely the law needs to change?

@kent f OBE wrote:

Breaking news on Yahoo:

Max clifford blah blah blah operation Yewtree.

Ok basically there are 3 categories in operation Yewtree

1. Jimmy Saville
2. Jimmy Saville and others
3. Others

Max Clifford has been arrested in category 3. So someone has made an allegation of sexual assult involving Clifford.

I don’t know obviously if he is guilty or not and if he is he deserves to pay for the crime, however the point I wish to make is that I think the law should change regarding the naming of men in these circumstances. If they are guilty then yes release their names etc, but when an allegation is made the police usually have to arrest the suspect for questioning. Could turn out he is not guilty, but mud sticks. People become wary, some say no smoke without fire, when sometimes soemone could just be getting their own back on a person for maybe a relationship break up or money matters or somthing trivial like getting custody of the goldfish.
What do you think?

Always understood the reason for a victim’s name not being released unless they release it themselves, but have always struggled with the double standard about releasing the accused’s name, given the fact that mud sticks whatever you do.

I suppose the problem is that we would have to wait until a conviction before the public could hear about some accusations. People might say that would prevent other victims coming forward or the public being warned in advance.

However would we really be in a worse place if the Police had time to investigate these things before the media witch-hunt begun? Also it would force the media to take their evidence straight to the Police, instead of working out whether to broadcast or publish, thus avoiding the Newsnight dilemma. The one problem is what would the media do if the Police failed to take an allegation seriously. If they couldn’t report, how would the Police and other agencies be held to account for any foot dragging? And how would we ever know if things were being swept under the carpet? Maybe the press could report without a name, but in these days of social networking that has been shown to be an unreliable way of hiding someone’s name.

I think you make a very valid point, but who is going to have the nerve to get it onto the statute books?

And I also forgot to say that my initial guess is that I wouldn’t be surprised if he has been arrested for withholding information pertaining to one of his clients, in which case the reports should make this clear. But that’s just my initial guess, I could be completely wrong.

@rusty trawler wrote:

With the exception of very special cases and cases involving young people where reporting restrictions need to be applied, there are very good reasons why accused people are not afforded anonymity. The most obvious is naming the accused facilitates the evidential process. For example, people who may have been victims of the accused may be inspired to step forward, once they know there is a possibility of justice. Also it is important that we are able to see the judicial system at work for various reasons.

But you’re right: mud sticks. We can address this to a great degree, I think, by ensuring the media that readily reports when someone has been arrested etc just as zealously reports when they are vindicated.

Completely agree with this.

A lady that I know has, in the last 12 months or so, gone through the ordeal of supporting her son through a court case for historic sex abuse. The abuse occurred when her son was between 8 and 12 years old; he’s now in his thirties. From the point where he first decided to report it to the police (also the first time his family were aware that he had been abused) it has taken 9 years for the case to come to court and for the abuser to be convicted.

When he first reported it, no one believed him, he was accused of making it up…the man he was accusing was a family friend, prominent in his profession and well respected. Had it come down to his story alone, it would never have been taken further but somehow the local newspaper got wind of the story and published. This was then picked up by a national newspaper and that got things moving as at least 15 young men contacted the police to say that they too had been abused by the same man over a 20 year period. 7 of them were also prepared to follow the complaint through to conclusion – I now know from her experience just how tough that is. Without the publicity these men would not have come forward. If they had not come forward he would have been branded a liar and become a victim all over again and the abuser would have been free to continue what he was doing.

It has truly been an ordeal for the whole family, not just the son, and somehow they have to pick up the pieces. Having spoken to her only this week, I’m not sure if they can do it, too much damage has been done. :(

Yes, sometimes people will jump on the bandwagon but we rely on the police to investigate and to weed those people out. Yes, sometimes a witch-hunt will take place. But what is better, for some people to be wrongly accused then get an apology, or for the real abusers to slip through the net because every victim thinks that they are the only one and that no one will listen and/or believe them?

A sad but perfect illustration, Jen*2

the law in action is not a neat and pretty thing.