FabSwingers.com forum: Do you think its time to let criminal subjects have a right to anonymity until they are charged?

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

In the wake of the Chris Jefferies fiasco when he was vilified by the press and has subsequently been awarded ''substantial'' undisclosed libel damages from eight newspapers in after a series of allegations were made against him over the Bristol murder of Joanna Yeates. Following that all the celebrity disclosures do you think its time as Theresa May says to make a stance and not name suspects until they are charged?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes should remain anonymous, after all it is innocent until proven guilty and the press have ruined many lives naming and shaming the wrong person before.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Too many people jump to conclusions before knowing the full facts of many criminal cases.

Mankind, society & media should be gagged until truth is obtained.

Beyond reasonable "Doubt" springs to mind.

The law is an "Ass" & there's one law for one & a law for others.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In the wake of the Chris Jefferies fiasco when he was vilified by the press and has subsequently been awarded ''substantial'' undisclosed libel damages from eight newspapers in after a series of allegations were made against him over the Bristol murder of Joanna Yeates. Following that all the celebrity disclosures do you think its time as Theresa May says to make a stance and not name suspects until they are charged?"

Absolutely !!! As i live in Bristol i followed that case closely and due to how he looked and the media portrayed him he was virutally hung before he had even got to court !!

Innocent until proven guilty end of.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxerjoshleeMan
over a year ago

Sheffield

Yes definitely. Shit sticks

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *r and mrs bangerboobsCouple
over a year ago

Bridgend

Simply....yes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not just until charged. Until found guilty. Shit sticks and it is not right to ruin someones life unless and until the charge is proven.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes, I think the time has come to make all names private until conviction. I fully understand this may lead to a 2nd trial, whereby other victims of the convicted party come forward but recent history has proved that pre conviction anonymity is now a prerequisite

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

I totally agree ,Although Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done ,I believe only a jury should have the ability to destroy a reputation ,not the press.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Yes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes is the logical answer for everyday folk.

And up until 10-15 years ago the press used to not report on cases until they had finished, seems now they do and people get off, look at the leeds united players trial for one.

Yes all trials until reached a conclusion should be unable to be reported on.

Unfortunately with twitter and other social media sites it is nigh on impossible to stop the information of celebrities getting out when been arrested etc.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes, seeing the recent case of a lawyer and high profile QC who both accepted a caution for getting frisky in public at Waterloo, she 6 weeks later alleged assault leaving him plastered all over the press while she has her identity protected. Following cases like Ken Barlow (can't remember his real name) and other similar situations it would suggest the law does need looking at.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London

Yes. Innocent until proven guilty.

Oh and Ken Barlow real name is Bill Roach. Nicknamed in the media Cockroach owing to his sexual escapades.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *S RachaelTV/TS
over a year ago

Lowestoft

In the light of recent abuses by the police in their statements - yes. A false allegation will, not can, ruin a person's life. There is an argument that they should not be named until they go to court.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the names should be kept from the public till convicted, because if you throw enough mud, some will stick

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In the light of recent abuses by the police in their statements - yes. A false allegation will, not can, ruin a person's life. There is an argument that they should not be named until they go to court."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

100% Yes!

The bedrock of English/British law is "innocent until proven guilty". That means proven in a court of law by a judge and jury. Not castigated by headline chasing press.

The recent crop of celebrities, army chiefs, politicians etc have served to highlight the problem but how many hundreds or thousands of ordinary people have had their lives ruined?

It should be illegal to name before verdict. Punishable by jail!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes there identity should be protected until the verdict has been given, if found guilty. These allegations do ruin lives. The law on the press freedom to report should be reviewed as should the judicial system as a whole. A mother who lost 2 children to "cot death" (unsure if this is the correct term to use) was convicted due to the ramblings of a so called expert. She was later proven to be innocent but this stuck with her until she took her own life a few years after release. It's a shameful waste of human life that the government and the judicial system do not recognise their failings when it comes to miscarriages of justice, mistrials and the unfair revelation of alleged perpetrators of crime.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"100% Yes!

The bedrock of English/British law is "innocent until proven guilty". That means proven in a court of law by a judge and jury. Not castigated by headline chasing press.

The recent crop of celebrities, army chiefs, politicians etc have served to highlight the problem but how many hundreds or thousands of ordinary people have had their lives ruined?

It should be illegal to name before verdict. Punishable by jail!"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How would you be able to protect the anonymity of someone the police are seeking in connection with an incident ?

Lord Lucan for instance

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Strange choice of undead thread?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would you be able to protect the anonymity of someone the police are seeking in connection with an incident ?

Lord Lucan for instance"

Police are searching for Lord Lucan whom they wish to talk to as part of an ongoing investigation. If found and taken to court no further mention of name?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would you be able to protect the anonymity of someone the police are seeking in connection with an incident ?

Lord Lucan for instance"

The general public would be of no use whatsoever in trying to track someone like that who was "on the run".

They would be disguised etc. the only people who would need to know would be enforcement agencies/border security etc....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would you be able to protect the anonymity of someone the police are seeking in connection with an incident ?

Lord Lucan for instance

The general public would be of no use whatsoever in trying to track someone like that who was "on the run".

They would be disguised etc. the only people who would need to know would be enforcement agencies/border security etc...."

Police do quite often seek public help when people have absconded.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread