People accused of sex crimes shouldn't be given anonymity

[GallicGarlic]

I am positively astonished that, as they face sex crime allegations, MPs say sex crime suspects deserve anonymity.

This will mean no e-fit pictures of suspects, no CCTV releases, no calls for other victims to come forward. AIBU to think this is jolly convenient for serial perpetrators? And to ask you to sign a petition?

No I would not just throw them in jail.

However, would you let them continue to work with children? Because that's what you're implying. You're implying that because you know of one malicious allegation, (and who knows the truth there?) that people shouldn't be suspended from their jobs while it is investigated, which goes against all safeguarding policies.

Can you clarify please - do you think that teachers should continue working as teachers when an allegation of sexual abuse has been made by a pupil?

and again you have shown the reason why anominty is important because for just an allegation would you would end someones career and bar them forever from any job that requires a CBR check (which nows days is basically every job)

suspention is fine while the investigation is on going but when its done reinstated if found innocent (or not enough evedince is found for court as its the same thing) is what should happen not fired and barried forever from any job involing children or CRB jobs?

So whoopsbunny what do you say about if the child retracts the alligation should said teacher be banned forever

Right - so you think those accused of sex crimes should continue working while it's investigated? Yes? That's what you're obviously saying?

So [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11109199/You-automatically-trust-doctors.-I-trusted-Dr-Bradbury....html this man]] should have continued working with children and had anonymity? Yes? Right until there was a conviction? And abused countless more children? Because the accusers may have been lying, right.

People like you are the reason this shit goes on so much.

Ah crosspost - so you don't actually think they should continue working?

for whoops benifet my stance is

On going investiagtion teacher suspended with full pay

if found not guilty not forever barred from teaching as basically they are being punished for being innocent

if found guilty locked up and throw away the key and rightfully barred forever

so basically alligation does not infact mean someone is guilty and should be punished (and yes losing your god damn job and career is a massive god damn punishment and with loss of job comes with the fun stuff of losing your home because you can no longer pay rent/morgage )

And so i put it to you whoopsbunny should someone basically lose everything they own because of a god damn alligaition not matter the merit of it?

not while the investiagtion is on going i rather the due process is carried about before punishement is carried out

And you are the reason that peoples lives are ruined just for alligations as you have not told me what you think teachers should do for jobs since they can no longer carry on their proffession? or is that not important to you that someones life is ruined (who for all you know could you know be totally innocent)

And not just a pupils alligation if a teacher is accused of rape (not just children related offenses) they are also barred forever from teaching and any other DBS check requiring jobs

So you do actually agree that those under investigation for child abuse sex offences should not continue working with children in the meantime? Good, we've got somewhere then. Btw, no one ever throws away the key, worridmum. They're always out in a few years, if that.

Take a look at this guy He spent time in jail because he was part of the wonderland paedophile ring. He has been convicted of a string of child sex offences and would it surprise you to know that he is not on the sex offenders register?

He was found advertising for child tutoring a while back.

If allegations are found to be genuinely malicious, then of course the person can return to work - but can I remind you how very rare false allegations are?

I am a newspaper reporter. There are a few very high profile cases being talked about here where I will concede the national press has behaved abhorently. But let's set these cases aside for now as they represent such a tiny, tiny fraction of the cases before our courts,

In the huge, huge majority of rape cases up and down the land the suspects are never named until their first appearance at court simply because a) local papers do not know who the defendants are until a court appearance and b) there is a risk of libel if they are named before the case goes to court.

There is certainly no routine naming of suspects by police forces before a court appearance.

Not naming a suspect until conviction us absolutely unworkable and would effectively result in an end to open justice in rape cases. If you can't name any of the parties involved then reporting the case becomes virtually impossible and completely pointless for the readers. So reporters just stop going to court for these cases. The end result is they don't get reported. Ever. A huge part of our justice system is not only that justice is done, it is that justice is seen to be done.

Just look at the youth courts, the family courts.... These are places where you can rarely name the parties involved and reporters have virtually stopped going there because their time can be better spent elsewhere.

If reporters adhere to court reporting restrictions (and they virtually always do at local level) then there should be no biased reporting, no sensationalism and a fair and balanced view of what happened in court.

And actually, I've never been to a case in court where it wasn't blindingly obvious that the defendant was guilty from the outset. Even when found not guilty it's always been because of a lack of evidence. I've been a reporter for a long, long time and I've never seen a single case where the victim was lying and later prosecuted for that lie. Not one.

I'd urge anyone who's never been to court to go along to your local court house and see a case. See how difficult it is to stand in a witness box and lie. You have to be Oscar-winning to convince a jury you've been a vicitm of a rape when you haven't.

Apols, "And actually I've never been to a rape case in court."

Thank you TracyBarlow, that is my experience too.

In the friend's case I talked about earlier, the policeman investigating said he'd like to broadcast the names and phots of the defendants on every lamppost in town - but they couldn't. In fact, another victim did come forward during the trial.

blindingly obviously guilty? before evidence is looked isnt that what reportors where doing to that slightly eccentric teacher? he seemed blindingly guilty so much so his entire life was dug up and used to convict him without even going to court

And so if all the cases you been to that they seem obviously guilty why waste tax payers money on a trial? if its a forgone conclusion they should be found guilty as from your words not guilty means not enough evidecne to convict

(cant we us that horrid alnaligy for the accuser and say not being prosicuted means that there is not enough evidence to prove she was lying so is basically guilty of lying even without a trial) that is totally wrong and a morbid viewpoint as shown with stats as low as 3% being mailicus false reports (it does not take into account mistaken idenity or genruine miscarrages of justice only that of malicus alligations)

And before anyone flames me I DO NOT BELIVE THAT THE VICTIM IS LYING IF A NOT GUILTY VERDICT IS REACHED I just dont belive that the accussed is automatically guilty

to its so difficult to prove that a false call of rape has occured that the CPS does not even bother investigating unless there is overwhelming evidence that proves beyond any doubt that it was based on a lie) not that i think sho

TracyBarlow was talking about cases in court being 'blindingly obvious', worrid.

Did you have a link to the press reports of those 3 teachers btw?

The person i mentioned earlier, was suspended on full pay for the time it took for their case to get to court. As i said, they were found not guilty. I didnt say that this was because they entered a plea bargain, so the victims (plural) did not have to give evidence.
They did it, btw, by their own admission.

Yet again i'll say, we need 'not proven'. Someone should start a campaign for that.

My person was in the police. Should they go back to their job, after being found not guilty of a crime they admit to?

I think that sort of thing would make worrid's world implode tbh, BeyondDoes Bootcamp. Because they're just not guilty until they are found guilty in a court of law. So none of us need to worry about those in a position of authority over our children - because nothing has happened at all until a court finds them guilty. And there's not an national child sex abuse scandal due to blow any minute.....

Can anyone link to the item where the mp group have recommended that in cases where there is not enough evidence etc the complaint will be accepted as a having been false? I'm rather flabbergasted by that so would like to see in black and white.

Yes as whoopsbunny explained, I was only talking about the 'blindingly obvious guilt' of the cases that have actually reached trial worrid.

Of course there should be a trial, and the jury should make their minds up based on the evidence presented to them, which is why I've seen clearly guilty men walk free. Only twice, I might add. And those men both had a string of convictions that I knew about, but obviously the jury quite rightly didn't.

And actually, it annoys me when people talk about trial by media, and sensationalist reporting etc when by and large, newspapers do stick to contempt of court laws. The worst place I've seen for contempt and for libel is this place. As soon as someone famous is accused of a crime, there's a thread on chat talking about the intricacies of the case and whether someone is guilty or not. The same contempt laws apply to forums as to newspapers and should be enforced IMO. If a reporter said some of the things that are said on here, they'd be rightly hauled before the courts to explain themselves.

Worrid I'd be interested to see a link to the well publicised case you refer to, because I think it either didn't happen or you're not telling us everything.

If someone has a malicious accusation levelled at them, they will not be barred from teaching. During the application process they should mention that it will come up on the DBS report and provide all paperwork showing that the accuser has retracted their statement, they will have paperwork relating to the case.

If, following a proven malicious accusation, a teacher is forced out of their job (on what grounds and why have they not sued for constructive dismissal), and is unable to get another job, I would suggest to you that there is more to the case than a girl/boy with a vendetta.