King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Anon wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Gnomo wrote:[/b]
[quote]Can't agree more ITK - a system that allows the accused to be named and pilloried in the media whilst the identity of the accuser is kept secret is NOT acceptable.
Either the identity of BOTH the accused and the accusers should be kept secret, or all named.
The Roache case is a very strong argument against publicising an arrest - as it shows how new accusers are generated - which builds the Police case - only to be shown in a Court of Law that their accusations are unbelievable. This could have been prevented if the accusers had been named, as it is conceivable that other witnesses could rise casting doubts on their character, history of accusations or motivation[/quote]

I think the accusers should only be named [i]if[/i] there accusations are proven to have been false and the accused should only be named if found guilty, except for in [i]very[/i] special circumstances e.g someone's on the run, believed to be dangerous, serial/potential serial attacker etc...[/quote]

I agree. But why are we naming accusers and victims of other crimes? 
Maybe there should be a news ban unless there is a conviction?[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Roache Not Guilty
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
In The Know	honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: I agree. But why are we naming accusers and victims of other crimes? Maybe there should be a news ban unless there is a conviction? In almost every other crime there will be some evidence - not simply one persons "word" against another's.
MWTWATCHER	Well I think justice has been done unless you witnessed on Radio2 Jeremy Vine show where a person who should know better would not comment on the NOT GUILTY and only to bang on about VICTIMS, Roche was the victim today. I must admit another invitee on the show did support the Savile debacle of a dead mans VICTIMS even though not one has been proved in a court of law, did Savile do it? Easy to jump on the band wagon. Now DLT next, I really hope this nonsense stops very soon
In The Know	Gnomo wrote: Either the identity of BOTH the accused and the accusers should be kept secret, or all named. I agree but think that the accused should NOT be named until after a conviction. After all, UK law (for more than 1000 years) has upheld "innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". It would mean that each case was tried upon its merits - NOT on the supporting "evidence" that comes forward as a result ! As Roache said today ... it's a hollow "victory" when your (good) name has been smeared and you have done absolutely nothing wrong ! ALL these cases will collapse (as I said previously) - the British public are not as daft as some people seem to think.
honey!oh sugar sugar.	Anon wrote: Gnomo wrote: Can't agree more ITK - a system that allows the accused to be named and pilloried in the media whilst the identity of the accuser is kept secret is NOT acceptable. Either the identity of BOTH the accused and the accusers should be kept secret, or all named. The Roache case is a very strong argument against publicising an arrest - as it shows how new accusers are generated - which builds the Police case - only to be shown in a Court of Law that their accusations are unbelievable. This could have been prevented if the accusers had been named, as it is conceivable that other witnesses could rise casting doubts on their character, history of accusations or motivation I think the accusers should only be named if there accusations are proven to have been false and the accused should only be named if found guilty, except for in very special circumstances e.g someone's on the run, believed to be dangerous, serial/potential serial attacker etc... I agree. But why are we naming accusers and victims of other crimes? Maybe there should be a news ban unless there is a conviction?
Anon	Gnomo wrote: Can't agree more ITK - a system that allows the accused to be named and pilloried in the media whilst the identity of the accuser is kept secret is NOT acceptable. Either the identity of BOTH the accused and the accusers should be kept secret, or all named. The Roache case is a very strong argument against publicising an arrest - as it shows how new accusers are generated - which builds the Police case - only to be shown in a Court of Law that their accusations are unbelievable. This could have been prevented if the accusers had been named, as it is conceivable that other witnesses could rise casting doubts on their character, history of accusations or motivation I think the accusers should only be named if there accusations are proven to have been false and the accused should only be named if found guilty, except for in very special circumstances e.g someone's on the run, believed to be dangerous, serial/potential serial attacker etc...