Should people are suspected of a crime (but not charged ) be named in the media?

[Tom4784]

Cliff Richard has spoken out on this recently after his issues with the BBC naming him in connection with Operation Yewtree although he was never arrested or charged as the argument is that mud sticks regardless of if the person is innocent. There's also been other examples of this outside of the realm of sexual abuse with the couple falsely named as being responsible for the drone disruption at Heathrow and, a fair few years back now, there was that murder case in which the media pretty much tried and convicted someone for it in the press who had nothing to do with it, I think ITV made a drama about it a year or two ago. Plus you have that example from ages ago when the Sun published a list of names of peadophiles and they messed up on one of the names and named a paediatrician instead.

I'm of the belief that, unless someone's been arrested then their names should be kept out of the press, once an arrest is made, however, it's fair game.

[Niamh.]

They're not named over here. It's a good thing imo

[user104658]

In theory I think names should be kept out until charges have been pressed.

In practice in the Internet / social media age, it's going to get out anyway.

[Vicky.]

Before an arrest they shouldnt be named (though not sure how they would be named before an arrest is made..). After, then its obviously news of public interest.

[Cherie]

No I don't believe they should too many people are arrested and not charged, and it is something that follows them around forever if their name gets into the media

Chris Jeffries who had his life ruined for being wrongfully arrested for the Jo Yeates murder springs to mind

[Niamh.]

In theory I think names should be kept out until charges have been pressed.

In practice in the Internet / social media age, it's going to get out anyway.Well there's an Irish sports star involved in a violent rape case, online only one name has been linked to that case but not loads of people know about it still it seems and he's a very famous guy

[Vicky.]

Well there's an Irish sports star involved in a violent rape case, online only one name has been linked to that case but not loads of people know about it still it seems and he's a very famous guy

Theres been next to nowt anywhere about that that I have seen, not even anon stories.

[Ramsay]

Well there's an Irish sports star involved in a violent rape case, online only one name has been linked to that case but not loads of people know about it still it seems and he's a very famous guy

I know who you're on about :skull:
But yeah I prefer how we do it over here

[bots]

i think they should be named if it's in the public interest that they be informed.

I see Cliff Richard signed up to this supporting new laws, where existing laws saw the people that "wronged" him were found guilty and fined. So existing laws did the job they were supposed to.

[Niamh.]

Theres been next to nowt anywhere about that that I have seen, not even anon stories.I mean it's good and I think the right thing to do however it's also ****ty if he manages to buy his way out and just walk around like he can do whatever he wants

[Vicky.]

I mean it's good and I think the right thing to do however it's also ****ty if he manages to buy his way out and just walk around like he can do whatever he wants

Quite obvious this will be what happens. Or had already happened.

[Liam-]

No they shouldn’t be, especially in cases that could follow them forever even if they’re innocent, if they’re convicted then they should be named, but until then, people should be anonymous

[Niamh.]

Quite obvious this will be what happens. Or had already happened.And the sad thing is I wouldn't even blame the girl because even taking on someone who isn't famous with unlimited funds usually doesn't result in a conviction. She would likely be the one on trial just look at that case in NI

[Kazanne]

They shouldn't be named unless found guilty and charged because you can arrest someone then find out they are innocent and their name is out there ,career and reputation ruined ,Cliff Richard will never be regarded the same again, which is unfair.

[Vicky.]

And the sad thing is I wouldn't even blame the girl because even taking on someone who isn't famous with unlimited funds usually doesn't result in a conviction. She would likely be the one on trial just look at that case in NI

Apparently, she did not even report the rape. She had gone to get treatment for the physical injuries. That night be made up but its what I read months back.

Anyway, he will be innocent because anyone who says a celeb (especially a loaded one) abused them is just doing it for the money :shrug:

Was looking through old Saville threads on another site last night, and there were loads of people saying that all the victims were just doing it for cash. Its quite scary really. 'Another one after compensation, this does a disservice to those who have actually been abused' etc etc

[Kazanne]

Apparently, she did not even report the rape. She had gone to get treatment for the physical injuries. That night be made up but its what I read months back.

Anyway, he will be innocent because anyone who says a celeb (especially a loaded one) abused them is just doing it for the money :shrug:

Was looking through old Saville threads on another site last night, and there were loads of people saying that all the victims were just doing it for cash. Its quite scary really. 'Another one after compensation, this does a disservice to those who have actually been abused' etc etc

I don't think everyone does it for money, but it definitely happens,there was quite a bit of evidence in the Saville case I believe even audio tapes ,so I think he was guilty,Cliff Richard on the other hand has been accused and cleared of any misconduct,so I think his was for money, it's shame it happens as it makes it hard for real victims.

[user104658]

Was looking through old Saville threads on another site last night, and there were loads of people saying that all the victims were just doing it for cash. Its quite scary really. 'Another one after compensation, this does a disservice to those who have actually been abused' etc etc

That sounds oddly familiar :think:. Can't put my finger on it though.

[Niamh.]

Apparently, she did not even report the rape. She had gone to get treatment for the physical injuries. That night be made up but its what I read months back.

Anyway, he will be innocent because anyone who says a celeb (especially a loaded one) abused them is just doing it for the money :shrug:

Was looking through old Saville threads on another site last night, and there were loads of people saying that all the victims were just doing it for cash. Its quite scary really. 'Another one after compensation, this does a disservice to those who have actually been abused' etc etcYeah if what I read about it is true (and it seems to be as police have actually said that she was injured as well as clearly raped) then it was one of the most horrific things I ever read and I have still seen people defend this guy, it's unbelievable what people will excuse because it's a hero of theirs and this person was a big hero of mine.

[Tom4784]

No I don't believe they should too many people are arrested and not charged, and it is something that follows them around forever if their name gets into the media

Chris Jeffries who had his life ruined for being wrongfully arrested for the Jo Yeates murder springs to mind

Oh that's the one I was thinking of, I couldn't remember the names involved.

[Vicky.]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213236&highlight=saville

Dear me, just searched for the thread on here, and I was one of the ones saying it was all for compensation back then :umm2:

Glad I am more mature now tbh, some of my opinions were ****ing gross when I look back on them..

[Kazanne]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213236&highlight=saville

Dear me, just searched for the thread on here, and I was one of the ones saying it was all for compensation back then :umm2:

Glad I am more mature now tbh, some of my opinions were ****ing gross when I look back on them..

I think a few people at first thought that way,as he was a hero to many,but I think there was a LOT of evidence that came about from credible people that were close to him and some audio tapes and wasn't he in to necrophilia too ?

[Kazanne]

That sounds oddly familiar :think:. Can't put my finger on it though.

I can,you are on about the MJ case.how awful that some people aren't buying what you'de like them too.

[Cherie]

Oh that's the one I was thinking of, I couldn't remember the names involved.

There was a TV drama about it, he had a horrendous time, basically shunned in his own neighbourhood and had to move home, I think he lost his job as well if I remember rightly

[Kazanne]

There was a TV drama about it, he had a horrendous time, basically shunned in his own neighbourhood and had to move home, I think he lost his job as well if I remember rightly

I remember that aswell,he did have a bad time and unfairly so.

[Denver]

There was a TV drama about it, he had a horrendous time, basically shunned in his own neighbourhood and had to move home, I think he lost his job as well if I remember rightly

The problem was he didn't fit into the normal person model so was an easy victim for people to blame which is sad

[user104658]

I can,you are on about the MJ case.how awful that some people aren't buying what you'de like them too.

I'm afraid I am Kazanne, yes, because reading the first two pages of that thread is like some sort of bizarre deja vu.

Why have these people waited until now to tell their stories?

How come then, that no one spoke out during his lifetime? I mean, was he so scary and powerful? How come everyone now knows that it was true because it was " creepy" and yet no one thought it was right to put a stop to it while it was happening? Or is now now an easy target because he can't clear his own name?

------

Esther Rantzen throwing her weight behind these claims shows us just what that woman will do to keep her career alive

------

It all boils down to this: someone somewhere is making some cash out of this




I mean... :shrug: these could literally be quotes from the Jackson thread.


I even asked Livia outright if she would have said the same about Saville and she was uncharacteristically dismissive of the question. It turns out that's because she literally did say exactly the same things about Saville almost word-for-word. Consistent opinions at least, I suppose.

[Cherie]

I'm afraid I am Kazanne, yes, because reading the first two pages of that thread is like some sort of bizarre deja vu.






I mean... :shrug: these could literally be quotes from the Jackson thread.

Savilles case is nothing like the MJ case, loads of people complained and the police and the BBC turned a blind eye, he was never investigated in life never mind by the FBI

[user104658]

Savilles case is nothing like the MJ case, loads of people complained and the police and the BBC turned a blind eye, he was never investigated in life never mind by the FBI

Yes and yet people (mostly the same people) were still casting doubt on it. The thread is like a mirror image, I don't see how that can be denied, it's right there to read.

[Marsh.]

i think they should be named if it's in the public interest that they be informed.

I see Cliff Richard signed up to this supporting new laws, where existing laws saw the people that "wronged" him were found guilty and fined. So existing laws did the job they were supposed to.

But them being fined doesn't take back what they did.

He wants laws to prevent this kind of thing being allowed full stop.

If someone has not even been arrested or charged with anything they shouldn't have their name and reputation trashed.

[Marsh.]

I don't think everyone does it for money, but it definitely happens,there was quite a bit of evidence in the Saville case I believe even audio tapes ,so I think he was guilty,Cliff Richard on the other hand has been accused and cleared of any misconduct,so I think his was for money, it's shame it happens as it makes it hard for real victims.

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him. :unsure:

[Marsh.]

The problem was he didn't fit into the normal person model so was an easy victim for people to blame which is sad

That sounds oddly familiar. :smug:

[Marsh.]

I'm afraid I am Kazanne, yes, because reading the first two pages of that thread is like some sort of bizarre deja vu.






I mean... :shrug: these could literally be quotes from the Jackson thread.


I even asked Livia outright if she would have said the same about Saville and she was uncharacteristically dismissive of the question. It turns out that's because she literally did say exactly the same things about Saville almost word-for-word. Consistent opinions at least, I suppose.

Tbf you're plucking opinions out from the early reports of Saville. Actual evidence came to light which changed it all.

[user104658]

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him. :unsure:

Multiple accusers but no physical evidence found and so the claims have (again) been dismissed as "definitely false" rather than "not proven" by many people.

[user104658]

Tbf you're plucking opinions out from the early reports of Saville. Actual evidence came to light which changed it all.

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

[Cherie]

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him. :unsure:

Yes there were two accusers

[Marsh.]

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

I agree in principle but you could say the same about people "so sure" he's guilty. :shrug:

[Twosugars]

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS :nono:

[user104658]

I agree in principle but you could say the same about people "so sure" he's guilty. :shrug:

True but all I can really say is that in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that MJ's contact with children was not "totally innocent" based on a LOT of factors. And I guess the pertinent point is, IF some evidence arises that shows that's incorrect - let's say they suddenly admit to lying or something like that - I would be far less sure if something similar was to come up in future. I find it strange that people can know that they were wrong once but still be AS SURE in another very similar situation.

[Kazanne]

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him. :unsure:

Wasn't it a teenage boy Marsh ? Oh I'm not sure now,better get investigating :laugh:

[user104658]

That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS :nono:

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S :hmph:

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

[Marsh.]

True but all I can really say is that in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that MJ's contact with children was not "totally innocent" based on a LOT of factors. And I guess the pertinent point is, IF some evidence arises that shows that's incorrect - let's say they suddenly admit to lying or something like that - I would be far less sure if something similar was to come up in future. I find it strange that people can know that they were wrong once but still be AS SURE in another very similar situation.

Everybody's only giving their opinions and perspective on what the public gets to see. None of us know. :laugh:

[Kazanne]

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S :hmph:

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

No, we saw two men who had previously lied ,going into very graphic detail of what he was supposed to have done and some very dodgy parenting, there ate too many conflicting stories in the MJ case totally different from the Saville one,I don't know why people keep harping on abut the similarities there are none,we had a court of law aquit MJ,not so with Saville ,so can we separate the two as they are not connected.

[Twosugars]

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S :hmph:

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

And I could say that people were definitely right when they insisted that Richards's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be right again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

You see we can play that game both ways.
So it doesn't help you going to a different thread and jumping at people. These are different cases, full stop, and should be treated separately and independently.

[Niamh.]

It was dodgy parenting because it was a dodgy situation

[Marsh.]

It was dodgy parenting because it was a dodgy situation

It was dodgy behaviour full stop. Even if MJ was fookin Santa Claus. D:

[Niamh.]

It was dodgy behaviour full stop. Even if MJ was fookin Santa Claus. D:Yes it's dodgy to leave your child with a man who likes to sleep with young boys I agree because you should wonder why a grown man wants to sleep with young boys

[Marsh.]

Yes it's dodgy to leave your child with a man who likes to sleep with young boys I agree because you should wonder why a grown man wants to sleep with young boys

But you can't say it's dodgy to leave your child because the situation is dodgy. It's dodgy full stop. Even taking abuse out of the equation they sold their kids to Hollywood for their own selfish materialistic reasons.

[Niamh.]

But you can't say it's dodgy to leave your child because the situation is dodgy. It's dodgy full stop. Even taking abuse out of the equation they sold their kids to Hollywood for their own selfish materialistic reasons.I am saying both

[Beso]

If they don't name them then they should be put on house arrest until trial or they agree to having their name released and are free ro move around until trial.