[kirklancaster]

The new program on Chanel 4; 'The Paedophile Hunter' raises a very complex issue; should any person accused of any crime in this country ever have his identity revealed to the public until he has been indicted, tried in a Court of Law and found guilty? Can publicising an accused's name ever be justified in a country which prides itself on the maxim that; 'A man is innocent until proven guilty'?

There are thousands of cases where ordinary people have been arrested for alleged crimes, only for the case to be subsequently dropped due to 'Lack of Evidence' or to be eventually found 'Not Guilty' after a trial, yet from being arrested, their identities have been made known to the public.

Being 'acquitted' is fine, but there are always people around who will know of the arrest and charge but do not learn of the subsequent acquittal. This means that an acquitted person can be often subject to condemnation, stigmatisation and rebuke, or even at risk from 'vigilante' attacks despite being cleared.

A particularly notable case of this is Michael Barrymore - who was found not to have committed any crime, but whose flourishing TV career was ended - due I believe - to public castigation at his gay lifestyle.

Celebrities who have been arrested, and charged then cleared, in cases such as Operation Yew Tree and similar ops, can attest to the above and to the truth in the adages that 'There's no smoke without fire' and 'mud sticks'.

I realise that there's times when the Police must release suspects details to the public - as in Crimewatch or in the case of suspected terrorists, but I'm referring specifically to people who have been arrested and charged but not tried and found guilty.

It's a tricky one. What do you think?