ChatterBank0 min ago
Should Those Accused Have Anonymity?
31 Answers
http://
Clearly it's currently wrong that anonymous accusers can wreck a life with impunity so I would back anonymity for both sides.
Clearly it's currently wrong that anonymous accusers can wreck a life with impunity so I would back anonymity for both sides.
Answers
Absolutely. It is appalling that a number of high profile personalitie
10:43 Mon 17th Oct 2016
Absolutely.
It is appalling that a number of high profile personalities have had their lives ruined by innuendo and rumours, which have led to absolutely nothing.
If you have heard the wonderfully dignified way in which Paul Gambacinni was suspended by the BBC and not contacted once by them to enquire about his well-being, and then re-instated as though nothing had happened, is a true lesson in the sad way society has gone down this road.
Mr Gambacinni's voice never rose, there was no accusation or malice, he simply allowed the undercurrent of his passionate view of how appallingly he was treated to shine through for all to hear, and I am quite sure Sir Cliff will do the same when his opportunity comes.
The willingness for society as a whole to believe the worst of famous people is a sad indictment on the dark underbelly of the 'celebrity' culture we endure, where real people must have their lives reduced to media soap operas, with no account for the lasting damage it must cause them.
It is appalling that a number of high profile personalities have had their lives ruined by innuendo and rumours, which have led to absolutely nothing.
If you have heard the wonderfully dignified way in which Paul Gambacinni was suspended by the BBC and not contacted once by them to enquire about his well-being, and then re-instated as though nothing had happened, is a true lesson in the sad way society has gone down this road.
Mr Gambacinni's voice never rose, there was no accusation or malice, he simply allowed the undercurrent of his passionate view of how appallingly he was treated to shine through for all to hear, and I am quite sure Sir Cliff will do the same when his opportunity comes.
The willingness for society as a whole to believe the worst of famous people is a sad indictment on the dark underbelly of the 'celebrity' culture we endure, where real people must have their lives reduced to media soap operas, with no account for the lasting damage it must cause them.
During my last teaching job my HoD went suddenly 'sick' for nearly a whole year. No-one knew why and assumed a breakdown. On his return it transpired that an ESN child had accused him of a sexual offence and we heard the horror of what his family had suffered (police raids, childrens phones and computers removed, wife grilled on his sexual history etc.). He was completely exonerated by the investigation and THEN the child admitted that she had lied.
A terrible enough situation without added publicity and public suspicion. I back Sir Cliff.
A terrible enough situation without added publicity and public suspicion. I back Sir Cliff.
Cliff's life has hardly been wrecked. He's doubtless been inconvienced by accusations made against him but that would have happened even if the accuser had been named.
But as for making the accused anonymous too - how are you going to police that when the names of Ched Evans's accuser has been all round the internet? Not only would Cliff have been named on the net - several other innocent parties probably would have been too.
But as for making the accused anonymous too - how are you going to police that when the names of Ched Evans's accuser has been all round the internet? Not only would Cliff have been named on the net - several other innocent parties probably would have been too.
It might be a useful start if we, as a society, could abandon the whole 'no smoke without fire' nonsense which ultimately surrounds these sorts of cases.
it is going back to the Medieval idea that simply to find yourself in a position where you could be accused of an 'offence' was seen as sufficient evidence of guilt.
it is going back to the Medieval idea that simply to find yourself in a position where you could be accused of an 'offence' was seen as sufficient evidence of guilt.
jack - //It might be a useful start if we, as a society, could abandon the whole 'no smoke without fire' nonsense which ultimately surrounds these sorts of cases.
it is going back to the Medieval idea that simply to find yourself in a position where you could be accused of an 'offence' was seen as sufficient evidence of guilt. //
That would be a wonderful way forward but sadly, it is unlikely to happen.
It's true, we have moved somewhat beyond the notion of throwing suspected witches into rivers to see if they are innocent and drown, or guilty and burnt, but the society attitude that led to those practices has not similarly moved on in parallel.
The 'no smoke without fire' concept is a cornerstone of newspaper sales in the world, and people remain willing to be convinced of it, even when evidence to the contrary proves the rumours to be false.
it is going back to the Medieval idea that simply to find yourself in a position where you could be accused of an 'offence' was seen as sufficient evidence of guilt. //
That would be a wonderful way forward but sadly, it is unlikely to happen.
It's true, we have moved somewhat beyond the notion of throwing suspected witches into rivers to see if they are innocent and drown, or guilty and burnt, but the society attitude that led to those practices has not similarly moved on in parallel.
The 'no smoke without fire' concept is a cornerstone of newspaper sales in the world, and people remain willing to be convinced of it, even when evidence to the contrary proves the rumours to be false.
Andy/Jourdain, bang on I with I cold give 2 best answers. jno They can do what they do now for the accuser, and if necessary use the mechanics of the super injunctions. it is disgusting that the immense power is given to gold diggers and fantasists, genuine cases also suffer because of these charlatans. I'm not saying it would all be kept under wraps but at least the law would be attempting to be fair to both sides. As for cliff not being damaged, I think seeing your own house raided on the news with plod and BBC collaborating to drag you through the gutter for over a year is going to affect anyone. Then there's always the "doubt" - no smoke without fire mob to contend with.
I have slowly changed my mind on this issue !
The Police and campaigners have always told us that if enough publicity isn't given to high profiles cases of sexual abuse, then not enough witnesses will come forward.
But it seems to me that as untold damage is being done to people in the public eye, its time to try another tack.
But what do we do about cases where there is definite guilt ? Nobody now doubts that Savile wasn't guilty of horrendous and numerous crimes, spread over 50 years.
What if Savile had been outed by one of his many victims, in the years before his death ? Would they have been believed ? He proved untouchable, as Cyril Smith did before him. Google Peter Righton and see how long he got away with his crimes.
Historical sexual abuse DID happen, and in the majority of cases, the perpetrators got away with it.
If we are not going to name names, how are the Police going to investigate properly ? A thorny issue.
The Police and campaigners have always told us that if enough publicity isn't given to high profiles cases of sexual abuse, then not enough witnesses will come forward.
But it seems to me that as untold damage is being done to people in the public eye, its time to try another tack.
But what do we do about cases where there is definite guilt ? Nobody now doubts that Savile wasn't guilty of horrendous and numerous crimes, spread over 50 years.
What if Savile had been outed by one of his many victims, in the years before his death ? Would they have been believed ? He proved untouchable, as Cyril Smith did before him. Google Peter Righton and see how long he got away with his crimes.
Historical sexual abuse DID happen, and in the majority of cases, the perpetrators got away with it.
If we are not going to name names, how are the Police going to investigate properly ? A thorny issue.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News5 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology8 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Vacuum Cleaner For Dog Hair...
Home & Garden13 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.