FabSwingers.com forum: name and shame

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

Not on here but sex offenders

Just had the news on and a story came on about naming accused sex offenders

Its been put forward that anyone took in for questioning should not be named until found guilty

I have always agreed with this, many people are took in for questioning, named and found innocent, the problem is mud sticks and these people have to live with such accusations for the rest of their life's

In the UK we are innocent till proven guilty so should innocent people be named?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lanemikeMan
over a year ago

Bolton

[Removed by poster at 20/03/15 14:49:59]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lanemikeMan
over a year ago

Bolton

"Not on here but sex offenders

Just had the news on and a story came on about naming accused sex offenders

Its been put forward that anyone took in for questioning should not be named until found guilty

In the UK we are innocent till proven guilty so should innocent people be named?"

Not named until they have been charged...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Not on here but sex offenders

Just had the news on and a story came on about naming accused sex offenders

Its been put forward that anyone took in for questioning should not be named until found guilty

In the UK we are innocent till proven guilty so should innocent people be named?"

thats not quite what was suggested NN

what they have suggestions is that someone should not be named until they are charged

so you get these people who "help them with enquiries" would not be named... so for example the example of the new rule would be that cliff richard's name would not be in the public domain...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

they shouldn't be named until they are charged its totally wrong and there are so many people who are accusing men of sexual abuse now that happened decades ago.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I may be in the minority, but whether its sexual abuse or murder, until they have been charged I have never felt it should be right for people to be named.

For me, in high profile cases it becomes trial by media. Thinking back to the case in Bristol.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I don't believe they should be named until they are proven guilty. It can destroy lives

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nfinity1Man
over a year ago

Near Bournemouth

They should be named after being found guilty Not before.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Named only when charged

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

From the little I know I always thought it was down to the discretion of the police to release this information anyway. I'm not aware of anyrurule saying that they have to reveal any names before someone is charged.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

"In the UK we are innocent till proven guilty so should innocent people be named?"

An emphatic no here

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

"They should be named after being found guilty Not before."

This.

So someone is charged and Subsequently released with no charge.

If names are released when charged then the mud will stick whether actually guilty or not.

And it should be the same for any crime.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

"Named only when charged

But if still proven innocent

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

[Removed by poster at 20/03/15 16:00:35]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Named only when charged

But if still proven innocent

I agree with that too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Ideally they should only be named once they are judged beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty. However I don't have a clue how that could be enforced with celebrities. I don't think they should be named when charged or before.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

definitely named when proven guilty, never before. Even when charged they should not be named as it could ruin somebody's life, career, family and future employment.

for example, a friend puts a kilo of under the passenger seat of your car without you knowing. you get pulled over the next day and cops find it. You get charged with possession. would it be fair for everybody to know you have been charged with possession of 1 kilo of . Even if you are found not guilty in court.

You would lose everything, for something you didn't do, after all possession is 9/10ths of the law!

It's not fair to name when charged, only when found guilty.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I would like to see anonymity until a guilty verdict. Being charged does not necessarily mean someone is guilty.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *r jblMan
over a year ago

from parts unknown

"I don't believe they should be named until they are proven guilty. It can destroy lives "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immy2xMan
over a year ago

aberdeen/inverness/ highlands

Its only recently that action has been taking against the many woman that tbrough spite or that accuse men of rape and sexual assault. A few have been charged now but its the tip of a very big iceberg, and these are only the cases that actually result in a court case for the accused. Any policeman will tell you of the many cases of this iccuring before the lies are revealed when giving the statement.

These woman are never named abd shamed before they are convicted, so the same must surely go for the man.

Sexyal crimes are disgusting and abhorrant however false accusuation are just as disgusting and i would say just as nadty as the crime itself. Many men kill themselves over this.

Sorry thats a little off the topic but thought i would say that to show how it can be unfair. So either name all or none at all.

The reason to name is to allow other victims to come forward when building a case again the accused, this can help in a conviction. However this us at the detriment of the right to privacy if the accused and possibly an innocent victim of a crime themselves. Society takes a dim view of sexually accused and i believe that far outweighs the benifits of naming. After all a crime should be able to stand on its own merit alone. Once convicted then any other people can come forward with information of other crimes.

The maximum i think for false accusiatiin is 2 years jail. This needs to be greatly increased as well.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By * Busty HotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Bradford

"Not on here but sex offenders

Just had the news on and a story came on about naming accused sex offenders

Its been put forward that anyone took in for questioning should not be named until found guilty

In the UK we are innocent till proven guilty so should innocent people be named?"

Totally agree. People have their lives ruined by bitter, unfounded or just generally wrong allegations whereas the people who make them are protected by the law.

Innocent until proven guilty, they should only be named when they have been found guilty, not even charged, but guilty in court. The police will charge you with a crime to justify an arrest and interview under caution. Also they will charge you on the balance of immediate evidence available. They are not the court though. Society judges those for whom such terrible allegations have been levelled at, regardless of the accuracy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ratty_DamselWoman
over a year ago

New Cross

"they shouldn't be named until they are charged its totally wrong and there are so many people who are accusing men of sexual abuse now that happened decades ago."

Of course, said men are not guilty?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I don't believe they should be named until they are proven guilty. It can destroy lives "

This.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"they shouldn't be named until they are charged its totally wrong and there are so many people who are accusing men of sexual abuse now that happened decades ago.

Of course, said men are not guilty?

we don't know if they are or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"they shouldn't be named until they are charged its totally wrong and there are so many people who are accusing men of sexual abuse now that happened decades ago.

Of course, said men are not guilty?

we don't know if they are or not."

I can think of two straight off the top of my head that have been dragged through court having their lives printed in the papers for months and found innocent

Bill Roache and Michael Lee Vell

Must have been terrible for them to have had such allegations made against them and the whole country calling them perverts for something they didn't do all for our entertainment and let's face it that's all medi hype is

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread