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  Attitudes & Opinions At the inquest into the suicide of tragic Alastair Wilbee |
|
At the inquest into the suicide of tragic Alastair Wilbee |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 30 April 2004 |
At the inquest into the suicide of tragic Alastair Wilbee, coroner John Matthews said that those accused of sex offenses should remain anonymous until convicted but the Home Office responded with is usual defense, that "justice should operate on a principle of openness."
I agree. In an ideal world, it should do. But sadly, with British law now completely devoted to assisting the accuser, false allegations are bound to emerge. Unless the police can be guaranteed to be fair and balanced in their interviews, contamination in statements will occur, be they intentional or accidental. Unless the law can be rewritten to include proof or evidence, one person's word will continue to be enough against another's.
And unless the media can be persuaded not to inflate and exaggerate stories to fit extreme headlines, innocent men and women will continue to be convicted.
Molesting another human being is the worst slander in society and the most vulnerable people are the most important sections of the community, be they teachers like Wilbee or priests or doctors or care workers or vicars or foster parents. And recently, attracted by the potential of media cash for sensational interviews, celebrities have become prime targets too.
I never knew Wilbee but I've met several men in prison who did and they say he was a fine, decent, honorable man. These men too claim to be innocent and I believe them. I think there are thousands of innocent victims of false allegations in Britain's overcrowded jails. I know I am one of them. When this first happens, despair and disbelief do, indeed prompt thoughts of suicide. I was luck as the opinion of total strangers has never interested me, be it good or bad, and I especially disregard the thoughts of those who believe everything they see or read in the media. As a result, I was able to cope with the effect on my life with great ease and I've found the last three years the most fascinating and stimulating so far. But I can understand the devastation caused to those whose reputation is important to them.
The disbelief when it dawns on you that the police are not prompted by the desire for truth but by a need for raised conviction rates. The incredulity when the detail of the law becomes clear and conviction virtually inevitable. It does shatter your illusions about the fairness of society.
In this era of Google and Friends Reunited, it's easy enough to discover details of anyone's past life. If government ministers or national editors were to adolescent fumbles or failed one night stands into attempted rapes, they might change their minds on the subject of anonymity. If public relations experts could be persuaded to abandon their destruction of footballers' private lives for a moment to advise claimants on the financial potential of such stories, politicians and media moguls might change their minds about the effects of negative publicity on justice.
Whether the motivation be genuine delusion, financial greed, revenge or a need for attention and sympathy, there are many reasons for people to invent or inflate tales of abuse. For most people, brought up on the assumption that "there's no smoke without fire" (something we dry ice experts in staged effects know to be untrue), the claim itself is enough to ruin a life.
As members of society, the concept that the very foundation s may be faulty is terrifying. We are unwilling to believe the increasingly large quantity of miscarriages of justice, be they Stephen Downing or Robert Brown or the tragic cot death mothers or the proven tip of the iceberg of false allegations against people like Basil William Rigby, David Luxford, Michael Lawson and others.
So, until the law and the police conduct of investigations is improved, perhaps editors should consider the consequences of their shocking headlines and the Home Office should stop bleating "no justification" for the concept of anonymity for the accused.
But until that happens to them, I can't see a change coming up. I'm not holding my breath.
Jonathan King
|
|
|
|
