Crosswords1 min ago
Why Is It That Some Are Named When Others Are Not?
13 Answers
http://
Do you think that those who have not been named are more important celebrities?
If so this type of thing is totally unfair to those named because taking it into consideration that even if they are found not guilty, accusations stick.
Do you think that those who have not been named are more important celebrities?
If so this type of thing is totally unfair to those named because taking it into consideration that even if they are found not guilty, accusations stick.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
haven't we seen this again and again, named and supposedly shamed on a website, only the find it had nothing to do with that person. It's what is insidious about the net, that you can post untruths till your hearts content and by and large get away with it. Of course there have been some who have been caught out, but maybe it means that anyone who tweets or posts slanderous unfounded allegations gets a fine or jail time.
The police have to do their job, and the courts convict, that is how it should be, not trial by internet. If the police have substantial evidence of wrongdoing then it's fair to say they can be named. If not then they don't.
The police have to do their job, and the courts convict, that is how it should be, not trial by internet. If the police have substantial evidence of wrongdoing then it's fair to say they can be named. If not then they don't.
in this case he's been arrested, so I suppose there must be some evidence of the allegations, though it will be up to the court to decide if it's enough.
Exactly why some have their names suppressed I don't know. What was even trickier was the superinjunctions under which not only could you not be named but nobody could report that an injunction had been taken out at all. On the whole, I prefer open justice.
Exactly why some have their names suppressed I don't know. What was even trickier was the superinjunctions under which not only could you not be named but nobody could report that an injunction had been taken out at all. On the whole, I prefer open justice.
"Detectives investigating reports of historic sexual abuse at Altrincham Grammar School for Boys in Trafford have arrested a 63-year-old man," Greater Manchester police confirmed in a statement on Tuesday. "The man was arrested ... on suspicion of three counts of indecent assault and four counts of inciting a child to commit acts of gross indecency."
The police, who did not name Talbot although he is understood to be the man who has been arrested, said that he remains in custody for questioning.
[from The Guardian]
There's a clue. It's the newspapers, the radio or TV producers who decide . "Understood", indeed; they shouldn't pick and choose. If the man himself agrees to it, that's fine. Otherwise, like the police, they shouldn't release the name unless and until the man is charged.
The police, who did not name Talbot although he is understood to be the man who has been arrested, said that he remains in custody for questioning.
[from The Guardian]
There's a clue. It's the newspapers, the radio or TV producers who decide . "Understood", indeed; they shouldn't pick and choose. If the man himself agrees to it, that's fine. Otherwise, like the police, they shouldn't release the name unless and until the man is charged.
No one should have their names in the press for being arrested on suspicion of anything. I approve of open courts where anyone can walk in and watch the wheels of justice turn but to publicly reveal the name of someone who has only been accused of committing a crime is tantamount to trial by the media / social networks.
It is wrong no matter how trivial or serious the offence.
It is wrong no matter how trivial or serious the offence.
aog and Birdie, we have support. Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Tugendhat, agreeing with the opinion of Lord Justice Leveson, in his report, and, The Times says, also that of other senior judges, have submitted a paper to the Law Commission. In it they deplore the practice of naming suspects who have merely been arrested. They think that any newspaper that publishes the name should be liable for immediate damages. Their opinion is that it is manifestly unfair to the suspect named.
The problem is Iggy, that a person arrested is only a person who is reasonably suspected by the arresting officer of having committed a crime. There is no need for there to be a prima facie case that they did, and often there is not. Once they are charged, and only if they are charged, have the CPS decided that there is a case which is likely to be proved against them.
Savile was dead. There is no doubt anyway that one or more, probably more given the number of offences alleged and the clear evidence of system ( of similarities in the particulars of the allegations), would have resulted in conviction, not just a charge, against him.
The police do not name people on arrest. They meet the need for discovering other offences by asking for witnesses. In the case of the TV weatherman, not named by them, they asked for anyone who had attended the Altrincham school, and who could give information, to contact them.
Savile was dead. There is no doubt anyway that one or more, probably more given the number of offences alleged and the clear evidence of system ( of similarities in the particulars of the allegations), would have resulted in conviction, not just a charge, against him.
The police do not name people on arrest. They meet the need for discovering other offences by asking for witnesses. In the case of the TV weatherman, not named by them, they asked for anyone who had attended the Altrincham school, and who could give information, to contact them.
IggyB - “... By naming people accused of sexual offences it does give an opportunity to those that may have also been attacked to come forward as occurred in the jimmy savelle case...”
I understand that argument and I can see it has some limited merit. Unfortunately, it unfairly prejudges a person and subjects them to a trial my media. As such, I strongly believe that revealing the name of someone who has only been accused of committing a crime is grossly unfair to the accused.
In situations such as this, you must put yourself in the shoes of a person wrongly accused of a crime. For instance, if I were falsely accused of rape, is it fair that my name and other personal details about me should be released to the press before I've even stepped foot in a court of law? This kind of false accusation can and does destroy marriages, careers and lives. It is simply not good enough to assume that an accusation is a precursor to guilt and therefore the accused is 'fair game' for the media.
Sir William Blackstone said it best, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. That concept was right in the 1760s and it is right today.
http://
I understand that argument and I can see it has some limited merit. Unfortunately, it unfairly prejudges a person and subjects them to a trial my media. As such, I strongly believe that revealing the name of someone who has only been accused of committing a crime is grossly unfair to the accused.
In situations such as this, you must put yourself in the shoes of a person wrongly accused of a crime. For instance, if I were falsely accused of rape, is it fair that my name and other personal details about me should be released to the press before I've even stepped foot in a court of law? This kind of false accusation can and does destroy marriages, careers and lives. It is simply not good enough to assume that an accusation is a precursor to guilt and therefore the accused is 'fair game' for the media.
Sir William Blackstone said it best, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. That concept was right in the 1760s and it is right today.
http://
1 to 13 of 13
