The problem is - are the accusers always telling the truth? Sadly, in my experience, they are NOT. Neither are they always lying; faded or changed memories, genuine misunderstandings or delusion - all play a part.

Media love revealing arrested names because it's the only thing that matters - a great story.
Police love it because the law allows it to provide evidence ("similar statements") and, especially regarding celebrities, that is gold dust easily provoked.

The wrongful prosecution of myself was extraordinary. The lawyers told me I would NEVER be charged on the clearly false allegations of one man (subsequently ordered abandoned by the trial judge to the great relief of the police who dreaded the court appearance of the obviously shifty person).

But the CPS were well aware of the police strategy; provoke massive publicity (and you would not believe the incredible quantity of headlines and column inches - fortunately all retained in my scrapbooks) in order to get more allegations. All true, they (and helpful Max Clifford) would say. All false, I claimed - but how to prove it?

I think those championing full disclosure such as Mail Editor Paul Dacre should experience this delightful mini drama and see (like Max Clifford has done) whether or not this comment is true. If one fractured, confused or even genuine lady went to the police to complain that Dacre raped her 40 years ago, what would be the result - after front page headlines? I wonder.

Interesting article in The Times by Ross Clark who says, if accusations do not result in charges, the accusers should be named. I go further than that - they should be prosecuted as many are (with no publicity).

A friend of mine was in the local paper (and website) when he was up on court 'on suspicion of failing to inform authorities of a change of circumstances' . The article printed his name, address, age, all the usual information.

A month later, back in court, the case was thrown out by the Magistrates because - as they found going through the evidence and acknowledged by the prosecution - my friend HAD informed authorities correctly and the incompetence of one of the authorities 'investigators' had caused all these problems.

Did the local paper print a retraction? No. Did they remove the article from the website? Only after my friend's solicitor threatened them with legal action and it was done 'with great reluctancy'. The newspaper was only interested in the 'bad news' which will get the reactionary idiots posting about 'the welfare state'. They were not interested in the truth.

On that score, I'm against people being named prior to conviction.

JK2006 wrote:
Interesting article in The Times by Ross Clark who says, if accusations do not result in charges, the accusers should be named. I go further than that - they should be prosecuted as many are (with no publicity).

the police should be sued for libel. Every time.

when the media announced the arrest of the MP/Speaker the police prattled on about "brave victims etc". outrageous.

JK2006 wrote:
The problem is - are the accusers always telling the truth? Sadly, in my experience, they are NOT. Neither are they always lying; faded or changed memories, genuine misunderstandings or delusion - all play a part.

Media love revealing arrested names because it's the only thing that matters - a great story.
Police love it because the law allows it to provide evidence ("similar statements") and, especially regarding celebrities, that is gold dust easily provoked.

The wrongful prosecution of myself was extraordinary. The lawyers told me I would NEVER be charged on the clearly false allegations of one man (subsequently ordered abandoned by the trial judge to the great relief of the police who dreaded the court appearance of the obviously shifty person).

But the CPS were well aware of the police strategy; provoke massive publicity (and you would not believe the incredible quantity of headlines and column inches - fortunately all retained in my scrapbooks) in order to get more allegations. All true, they (and helpful Max Clifford) would say. All false, I claimed - but how to prove it?

I think those championing full disclosure such as Mail Editor Paul Dacre should experience this delightful mini drama and see (like Max Clifford has done) whether or not this comment is true. If one fractured, confused or even genuine lady went to the police to complain that Dacre raped her 40 years ago, what would be the result - after front page headlines? I wonder.




I am confused by the title of the thread. How can you be "not necessarily" against publication? Especially after what happened to you.
Do you think you might be taking reasonableness too far? Or is there a valid argument for it that I am unaware of?
The police have always sought out and questioned others who may have been affected, without the assistance of the newspapers.

"Not necessarily" because there may be cases where someone HAS abused a lot of people, for example years ago in an orphanage, and more genuine victims are needed to convict them; I think we'd all like to see those ghastly people punished (what can be more cruel or unfair than abusing a vulnerable child - read the early scenes of Oliver Twist) and sometimes only media publicity can unearth witnesses.

If people only ever spoke the truth, there would be nothing wrong with it. But people tend to exaggerate or inflate or colour up reminiscences, especially in the case of celebrities. And the real media reason for wanting freedom to publish (it's a great story) is so obvious I'm astonished they dare say otherwise.

JK2006 wrote:
"Not necessarily" because there may be cases where someone HAS abused a lot of people, for example years ago in an orphanage, and more genuine victims are needed to convict them; I think we'd all like to see those ghastly people punished (what can be more cruel or unfair than abusing a vulnerable child - read the early scenes of Oliver Twist) and sometimes only media publicity can unearth witnesses.

If people only ever spoke the truth, there would be nothing wrong with it. But people tend to exaggerate or inflate or colour up reminiscences, especially in the case of celebrities. And the real media reason for wanting freedom to publish (it's a great story) is so obvious I'm astonished they dare say otherwise.

Oh I see. Yes I suppose there is a case for exceptions.

I suppose the next thing will be to offer the same opportunity for justice to the victims of non-celebrities by having a weekly round up of arrests on television.

It's called Crimewatch Honey.

JK2006 wrote:
It's called Crimewatch Honey.

Do they name accused and ask if anyone else has been raped?
I haven't seen it for about twenty-five years.

the proof and facts are- the police simply cannot be trusted.

there should provision for the accused to be able to request anonymity for the reason the police will act like cheap publicists and invite accusers in sex cases.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
It's called Crimewatch Honey.

Do they name accused and ask if anyone else has been raped?
I haven't seen it for about twenty-five years.

I think it tends to be more 'have you seen this man?' 'police are looking for this man in connection with', 'we are looking for anyone with any information about such and such an incident' etc...

Rather than 'have you been a victim of this man?', I don't think i've seen that before.

imo wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
It's called Crimewatch Honey.

Do they name accused and ask if anyone else has been raped?
I haven't seen it for about twenty-five years.

I think it tends to be more 'have you seen this man?' 'police are looking for this man in connection with', 'we are looking for anyone with any information about such and such an incident' etc...

Rather than 'have you been a victim of this man?', I don't think i've seen that before.

I have...in the newspapers and on TV every day. The police appealing in many differing ways (except on Crime Watch)...."are you too a brave victim ?...then come forward"...usually right after a famous BBC celebrity has been arrested and paraded before the media.