Oh no, not Matthew Kelly too!

[mears]

What a shock tonight on the news - Matthew Kelly accused of child abuse in the 1970's. What if it isn't true - the man's career is ruined. If it is true, what else has he done?
How do you explain to your kids about the nice man from Stars in Their Eyes?

Good grief... Who will be next?

AArrgghh, I really like Matthew Kelly, oh I hope it's not true. He comes across as such a genuine person.

i am with you nutjob, if this is true, its awful.

I know he should be innocent until proven guilty- but I have always though there was something a bit creepy about him. Him, Cliff Richard and Graham Norton are the only people whose appearance on my TV makes me instantly turn off. (Not that I think CR or GN are involved in anything dodgy - they just annoy the out of me!)

This is getting ridiculous. He could easily be innocent, but now probably his career is ruined like mears says. I don't think they should be allowed to publish names in these cases until found guilty. It could be true, but it could also be a bitter fan or someone with false memory syndrome or anything.

Personally I think the general paranoia about peadophiles has gone too far.

It said on Sky news that they believe this arrest to be connected to the Jonathan King investigation, which is why although being arrested in Birmingham he is being held and questioned at Guildford.

mears wasn't saying that stars should be treated any differently, just that his career is ruined. Joe Bloggs doesn't have a career in the public eye, and if found innocent could probably settle back into his job as an accountant,roadsweeper, chef or whatever without too much scrutiny from the media. MK will now always have this hanging over him, gulity or not- its bound to make a difference to the type of jobs he's offered, I bet panto's out in the future!

FWIW, I think all alleged sex offenders should have their identities protected until found gulity in a court. The legal process should be speeded up, though, so that the innocent can be freed of all the worry quickly, and the guilty can be banged up quickly!

I totally disagree. I think the publicity is important for two reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of victims of abusers are racked with guilt and shame and never come forward. Arrests of rapists, abusers etc etc usually bring forward other victims which help strengthen the case against someone who might otherwise be freed and do it again and again (very common with sex offenders). And secondly, the publicity makes abusers realise they are never safe - they will be found out and therefore may dissuade others from doing what they've done. I certainly don't want justice to be done in secret, which would be the case if names were protected. I think open justice is a vital part of democracy. After all, it could be argued that it would be equally damaging to reputations to be accused of fraud, murder, grievous bodily harm etc etc. This would lead to all trials being held in secret or not properly reported. I think the Pete Townshend arrests have led to many other men who have paid to use paedophile websites (and thus paid to have more children raped and sexually tortured) being truly terrified of being arrested (good!) and others will have been dissuaded from punching in their credit card number because they now know this is not anonymous and there is a very good chance the police will turn up on their doorstep and their lives ruined forever (also good).

But Aloha, what about cases of false accusation where the defendant is subsequently found innocent? Their life will have been ruined for no reason.

I agree that the identities should be protected until they are found guilty.

No, I'd want to know if they'd been found guilty.

Why should "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to certain crimes?

Agree with you, Soupdragon, but can understand why parents would want to know. There's such a low conviction rate for sex offences, even if it does seem in all probability that the person has done it. Still think principle of innocent until proven guilty is a sound one, and there's a lot of damaging/scurrilous reporting in the press.

So what about protecting the identities of those charged with murder etc etc? Why should we offer special protection to those charged with sex offences. That seems quite mad to me. The police are strongly against it as it really helps their investigations, too.

The principle of innocent until proven guilty is a legal one that is not compromised by the open reporting of legal proceedings. Nobody is ever found innocent, however. And in rape cases in particular they often weren't.

Batters - I see your point but don't see why publicising the names of the defendants would be the only answer - surely it can be a condition of bail that people charged with these types of offences don't go near children?

Aloha you have a point too, but I think we need to protect innocent accussees as well as victims. Especially when people have been lynched for being on suspicion of child abuse. Famous or not famous, there is no way you can continue your life after being accused of something like child abuse even if you are subsequently found not guilty. In terms of encouraging other victims to come forward, surely only a vague description is necessary rather than the actual identity (this will then serve as corroborating evidence as each victim's evidence will be independent.)

Again, though, why on earth should those accused of sex offences get different and better treatment than those accused of other offences, such as fraud, violence, murder etc etc? it would be a very dangerous precedent to offer them the cloak of anonymity, both for victims and for the law and for the freedom of the press.

Aloha I missed your latest messages - having connection problems.

I say people charged with sex offences should be able to remain anonymous until found guilty precisely because people can never be found "innocent". Possibly that should apply to murder too, but sex offnces are the ones that cause people to be hounded out of their homes / jobs etc (in one case, for having a name a bit like that of an actual offender) more than any other crime. Also because these cases are often the word of one person against another rather than any other evidence (and there is always at least some evidence in a murder trial).

Like Soupdragon, I would like to know if a neighbour was found guilty. I would not leave my dd in the care of someone I didn't know, and when older I hope that I will be able to educate her about how to look after herself when she becomes more independent. ANYONE, male, female, friend/ relative or stranger could be an undetected paedophile, and I think we just have to try and strike a balance between allowing children enough independence to develop their confidence and protecting them from harm. Its not easy.

In some ways I feel this is analogous to the problem we have in the NHS with HIV. If someone is HIV positive, everyone gets to know about it, and you commonly hear "I have a right to know and protect myself against this person". It amazes me how slapdash people can be when a person isn't known to be HIV positive. ANYONE could have the virus and not have been tested, or be in the interval between inoculation and seroconversion. We should take adequate precautions when dealing with everyone, not just drug addicts, prostitutes, haemophiliacs, etc, afterall, there are many of these groups who do NOT have the virus, and they deserve to be treated with some respect for their confidentiality and dignity.

I think people arrested for murder should also get the right to remain out of the public eye unless they have been found guilty and convicted of the crime. Remember the media hoohah surrounding the arrests after the Soham murders? That was attrocious, and I can't see how it can't predujice a fair trial.

Anyway at the very least, people accused of any serious offence should not be named until they are actually charged (rather than accused). If the police need more evidence to charge them then they could release a press statement giving vague details and a request for other victims to come forward. As it is it is quite easy for people who have hazy memories of abuse to become convinced that a certain man was the perpetrator when his face is all over the press - the evidence of victims who didn't have that would be much more valuable and perhaps increase the conviction rate for sex offenders.

GoerginaA - I agree. The scenes in Peterborough were just awful and the woman hadn't even been accused of being involved in the murders. The worst thing was that children were there.

And do you remember those dreadful scenes in Portsmouth (I think) with those chanting crowds at the time the News of the World published all those names and pictures of people on the sex offenders register. It got totally out of hand, and one man was harangued because he was a paediatrician, and someone made a spelling mistake.

Aloha, you say that "Nobody is ever found innocent, however. And in rape cases in particular they often weren't" I seem to remember a couple of cases in the last few years where a woman made false rape accusations. The man was named as the accused rapist when he was innocent and was proven to be innocent. Why should he have his life/career ruined or jeopardised bcause of false accusations? Yes, there are almost certainly people who are "not guilty" when a more fair verdict would be "not proven" (isn't his a Scottish thing?) but that doesn't mean they should be pre-judged in the press.

"The principle of innocent until proven guilty is a legal one that is not compromised by the open reporting of legal proceedings." Not sure about this one. I thought there had been a couple of cases thrown out because of press coverage resulting in an unfair trial.

I do not think anonymity should necessarily be restricted to sex offenders but should probably be a basic right until the accused is found guilty. Or maybe just until the court case is concluded regardless of verdict.

(and I'm not getting at you personally, Aloha )