Despite the huge success of the one sided Michael Jackson "documentary" fulfilling the agenda ("get ratings; make money") the campaign grows at least regarding the living falsely accused.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47502383

I wonder whether this is quite as sensible as it first seems. Two (ill-formed) thoughts at this stage:

1) It is surely somewhat doubtful as to whether anonymity for accusers is desirable or even justifiable. Does this appeal for anonymity for the accused provide tacit approval for anonymity for the accuser as well when, perhaps, justice would be better served by anonymity for neither party?

2) If an accused person is to be protected from public naming, is there any danger of this (perhaps through badly worded law or guidelines) excusing 'secret detention'? There are of course countries in which people disappear for weeks or months on end with police refusing to confirm that they have arrested a suspect.

If both sides – victims' groups and the wrongly accused – are supportive of less transparency in our legal process, isn't that a litle concerning?

JK2006 wrote:
Despite the huge success of the one sided Michael Jackson "documentary" fulfilling the agenda ("get ratings; make money") the campaign grows at least regarding the living falsely accused.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47502383

It says that "Victims of sexual offences have automatic lifetime anonymity" but they really dont if the accuser is named publicly, because it is often very obvious who the alleged victim is when the newspapers describe the allegations.

I know of one case that was in the media of a father supposedly assaulting "a child" and it was very obviously the daughter.

It turned out that the father had done nothing wrong, and the child had been manipulated by the mother in a divorce battle.

So, not only had the child been abused by the mother, (in a different way) she had to put up with nasty jibes from her peers at school, and unwanted sympathy from the many who believe there is no smoke without fire.

This lack of anonymity would surely prevent victims of family abuse (the most damaging and difficult to disclose) to get help?

Are we condemning children to suffer in silence for the sake of salacious newspaper reading?

I agree with Misa. Isn't it a little funny that literally the ONLY win for those against the feminist status quo is getting anonymity for those accused? No doubt this is because some feminists know that it will actually be a win for them.