Suspects in sex cases should have their identities protected until they are convicted, a senior lawyer has said.

Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, said defendants should get the same right to anonymity as complainants.

She wants the change because sexual allegations carry "such a stigma".

But the charity Rape Crisis said anonymity for defendants would discourage people from reporting sex crimes and "victimise victims further".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21487266

I just somehow knew that the "right-on" brigade would want extra / broader laws for them.

And if the law is now changed (I think it could well be - because suddenly the expense and time spent investigating false allegations due to media trawling is exploding) - where do I stand? I would never have been prosecuted, let alone convicted, if my name had not been released, creating massive negative publicity and provoking dozens of false allegations (as proven in court).

Would my appeal then be heard and granted (as the law would then have agreed media coverage can provoke false allegations)?

In The Know wrote:
Suspects in sex cases should have their identities protected until they are convicted, a senior lawyer has said.

Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, said defendants should get the same right to anonymity as complainants.

She wants the change because sexual allegations carry "such a stigma".

But the charity Rape Crisis said anonymity for defendants would discourage people from reporting sex crimes and "victimise victims further".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21487266

I just somehow knew that the "right-on" brigade would want extra / broader laws for them.

The obvious prevalence of false allegations alone is reason enough to argue for anonymity for the accused aswell.

To state that false allegations of sex crimes are common place is simply stating a fact.

The Jimmy Savile rubbish and the investigation into the Magdalene laundries are just a couple of recent examples, but there are loads...

these ghastly 'victims rights' people talk as if the accused is automatically guilty before trial.

police love naming people so they can trawl for more evidence when in every other matter they don't charge till they have enough.

Tosspot is tweeting like mad about how "bad" this would be for "victims".

I wager it would be bad for him, his bank balance and the industry he's created. Now, if only some woman could be found who had "contact" with him in the past....

Trouble is, this IS now an industry. The Rule Of Law is being destroyed from within - the Bliars, the Mandelsons & the shitehawks specialising in compensation. Your spineless hacks depend on the beast being fed too, as do as those bitter old hags who's faces are now falling off leaving them nothing but regrets & Daytime ITV.



Don't put yourself through the pain of watching this awful excuse for television again, but check out the virulent aggressive and persistent remarks from "kissfan7" - that is either a mainstream hack, someone connected to Yewtree, MWT or one of his lackies or a shitehawk solicitor, under a "disguise" of a random idiot ("kissfan" indeed) - I don't know what you all think but the sneering contemptuous denial is, to me, symptomatic of a tabloid hack. Note how they stopped when pressed to reveal their identity...

How do these people sleep at night?

hedda wrote:
these ghastly 'victims rights' people talk as if the accused is automatically guilty before trial.

police love naming people so they can trawl for more evidence when in every other matter they don't charge till they have enough.

Hedda gets something right !!

The trawling helps "prop-up" cases that otherwise would not stand on their own.

The topic is going to be discussed on the "This Morning" show today.
No need to suffer the whole show because they usually have clips on the website later. www.itv.com/thismorning/

I am informed the "Loose Women" were supporting the anonymity of the accused t'other day, forgetful of their previous stance. The naughty ladies must have been skipping their mandatory ITV brainwashing sessions with Marky Mark? Mind you, it is a females prerogative to change her mind whenever she feels like it, is it not?

So many seem to miss the point that keeping the accused anonymous will often prevent the accused from being identified because in most assault cases the victim and attacker know each other and it is easy to put two and two together.
It is possible that more victims would come forward if they were not afraid of being identified in this way.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
So many seem to miss the point that keeping the accused anonymous will often prevent the accused from being identified because in most assault cases the victim and attacker know each other and it is easy to put two and two together.
It is possible that more victims would come forward if they were not afraid of being identified in this way.

Too true.

Alot of people may actually be put of by the unwanted attention it might bring and might be more likely to make a complaint if they know their attacker won't be named until they are convicted, and therefore the accuser will be much less likely too feel any hostility in the lead up because most won't know the accused is accused and the thing will be more private.

Of course 'anonymity' only works concerning people they don't know or don't know well, close family and friends will still be able to find out no doubt.

The argument "less victims of sex attacks would come forward if the accused was to remain anonymous until their conviction" simply makes no sense to me, surely it's more likely to be the other way round for the majority of people...?

Anyway it seems only right that the accused should not be named unless they are convicted, as what if they turn out to be innocent...?

I can see some cases for exceptions e.g if the person is on the run, and the police are looking for them etc, but as a general rule, where possible, the accused deserve anonymity aswell and should remain that way unless actually found guilty of the crime...