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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Yeah 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.

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

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...hlight=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 ?

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

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.

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