[joeysteele]

I took on Nedusa's important point as to if accusers were named after accusing someone falsely then some could see that as a green light to commit crimes against them,in that those people could be seen as not to be believed again.
So I can be persuaded that they should remain anonymous.

However for me, that even moreso opens the dooor that someone accused falsely has to have some 'protection' too.
Which is why, I would like to see no naming of those accused until the actual trial and then only when the person accused either pleads 'guilty' or is found 'guilty' by a jury after trial.

As to someone found 'not guilty',that would end the naming and exposing the identity of the accused right up to the end of the trial and they then really can get on with their lives as near as possible untarnished.

As to those who have accused someone falsely and if someone is found 'not guilty' then the jury didn't clearly believe the accusers.
If not naming such people has to be the norm then I do think at the very least they should be punished for in effect, at the very least, 'wasting police time'.

To falsely accuse someone of anything they haven't done is wrong and to further testify in court to that is even more wrong.
In the accusations of rape,which is a very serious and dangerous thing to accuse someone of ,so to do so falsely demands in my view anyway some punishment for doing it.

That will then possibly deter anyone from accusing someone of something falsely and not cause more problems for those who were genuinely abused getting proper justice.
I still firmly believe anyone making a false accusations about someone should get some punishment for doing so.
I take on board not naming those who accuse falsely but they should not be able to get away with it,in my opinion.