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?

what an interesting debate I just don't know where I stand on this - Aloha, I see that this topic is close to your heart, and you have given it much thought. Yet, an accusation of child moldesting is such a career stopper (celeb or not) that I can see why others argue for anonynimity.

I have rushed though this thread - I might have missed the finer points but is this how it goes - in for questioning, charged, appearing at court, sentenced.

If so I think there are good reasons to keep anonyminity till the charged stage is reached, and if more witnesses are needed, post non-named descriptions in the press. Wouldn't witnessess and victims recognise these just as well?

Raping someone's reputations via blackmail, witchhunting and publicity seeking is a far lesser than rape itself ime, but why encourage it at all? What is the real good of open reporting before a charge is made? I might have missed something - must read the thread again when I have more time.

Agree with you wholehearedly Aloha in the deterrant aspect of this - really glad if the Matthew Kelly case stops men logging onto paedophile sites. But surely it doesn't take MK's name in the press to make those men quake in their boots - imo press reports minus the name would have done that worthwhile job just as well.

I agree that anonymity is a good idea until a person is charged (actually, that's the way it is supposed to be). I think though, if justice is being done in our name, we ought to know who is being prosecuted in our name. Personally I do think there is a huge deterrent in men's names being published once they have been charged. I think paedophiles think they do what they do in secrecy and anonymity. To blast that away is excellent in my book. A name truly does make a big difference - I know because I have looked into this having written about rape and the justice system and trying to campaign against the rape drug GHB. Take the Max Factor heir who is on the run after being charged with drug assisted rapes here and in the states. After his name came to light, many, many women came forward to tell their stories. They all thought it was just them, but it seems very much as it it wasn't. One thing that has struck me is that while you might recognise a rapist's name and come forward with a story so similar to that of others that it rapidly becomes clear that he is a liar (see previous post for example), it would not be possible for someone to come forward if you published details of the attack without the very question of compromised evidence that another poster mentioned IYKWIM.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, however.
Also, when the Jonathan King arrest was publicised many, many other men immediately came forward with their stories which were incredibly similar in the way he approached the boys, the 'questionaire' he gave them about music and sex, the use of pornography to arouse them, etc etc. In other words the MO was the same every time and this helped to convict him. There is a possibility that if that had not happened, he might not have been convicted for lack of evidence! They had to come forward before the trial otherwise the evidence would have appeared in the papers (including the method of approach) so King's defence could just say that any new victims merely copied the other witnesses' stories.

I do appreciate the point about other victims coming forward.

One or two people have said 'why should sex offenders be treated any differently from murderers?'. The reason seems to be that it is such a highly emotive subject - someone who has been accused/tried for paedophilia will not bounce back in the same way that someone acquited of murder - somehow people seem more able to believe that an accused murderer may be innocent. Not so with an accused paedophile. Supposing there were a high profile case and someone was acquited - it would only take a tabloid heading of "'Child fiend' walks free" and they would be forever branded as a paedophile.

Aloha, I'm not sure if it was my comment you disagreed with when you said "I also have to disagree that someone who is falsely accused is worse off than the victim of a rape, or a child who has been raped and sexually tortured." but if it was, you've misunderstood me.

When I said that "a falsely accused defendant is more of a victim than the original victim" I meant the supposed victim who had accused them (and who therefore wasn't a victim at all).

Now, I'm not for one moment suggesting that the names of victims be published but by granting them anonymity, it contradicts the call for free reporting of all the FACTS in the case. The phrase 'all the facts' includes both defendant and (alleged) victim.

To use the reasoning of bringing other victims of, say, a rapist out of 'hiding', what if a victim has repeatedly made false accusations? Someone who was previously falsely accused may see the "victim's" name and come forward to say "hang on a minute, I was accused of exactly the same thing by this person".

Using the example of Jonathon King (and to agree with someone else, I did indeed find both him and GG creepy). Yes. naming him brough forward other victims but would it not have had the same effect to have said police were investigating alleged abuse at the ??? club? I seem to remember that a lot of the inital contacts were at a youth club of some sort. I would imagine that the victims would recognise this without JKs name being attached to it. The stories would still have matched (eg the questionnaire) without any more details being released to compromise their validity.

TBH, I doubt there's a win-win soultion to this but it certainly makes an interesting debate.

I've been thinking about this all afternoon, and I think the problem may lie with the press. If the press were not so quick with their 'witch-hunts', and desperation to sell copies with salacious stories about stars, but reported cases in a calmer, less sensational manner, perhaps it would be possible to believe that a person may be innocent. For example, headlines such as 'Kelly faces years in jail', imply that he is questioned, charged and convicted. It is hard to back away from such a statement.

I wonder if more reasonable reporting might be a good compromise - I understand the problem about needing other witnesses to come forward, and this might allow the information to be shared without the devastation to the accused. I remember after the Sarah Payne case, the 'naming and shaming' in the News of the World - as someone has already mentioned, a paediatrician was targeted by the public, and I think at least one person was incorrectly identified. But the hysteria whipped up by the newspaper was enough to turn normally reasonable people into a mob, hounding at the doors of these people. The police had asked for the paper not to 'name and shame' as it would send real paedophiles underground where they couldn't be kept under surveillance.

So perhaps there should be greater restraint shown by the press - maybe they should report news, without the sensation.

I can see the other point of view on this... but... not all of JK's victims were found via this youth club (the same one linked to MK, of course). he went on doing in for years and years in different places. Also, anything that ran the risk of identifying him - such as places, description of his job etc would be illegal if anonymity to defendants was granted. You just couldn't legally have anonymity and enough information in the public domain for victims to identify him.
Yes, I agree there is a compromise on the principle of free and open justice in keeping victims anonymous but I feel the risk of otherwise letting dangerous criminals walk free to pose a threat to everyone else, is too great a risk to take. Apart from minors, rape victims and blackmail victims are the only people allowed to remain anonymous at present. This was simply because they wouldn't come forward otherwise. Defendants were allowed anonymity for 12 years until 1988, but the police found it hampered justice, so it was removed. So it was tried, but was found not to work.

And Soupdragon, I see what you mean. I did misunderstand you, so I'm sorry.
I would think that if a person was in the habit of making false accusations, the police would know and I doubt the prosecution would continue in most cases. I suspect that repeat accusers are, however, a lot less common than serial rapists, and, wicked and malicious though they are, pose less of a risk to society than rapists.

I completely agree that the News Of The World campaign was stupid, dangerous and irresponsible. I wasn't very impressed that the editor is now editing the Sun, either. Believe me, I hate lynch mobs and those people who bay outside courtrooms too. It's awful for innnocent defendants to have to face that kind of thing.

How much I've missed of this debate!

I think there's room for some sort of compromise. Suspected offenders who abscond should definately be named, I'm just not sure about the others.

I agree that the NOW thing was outrageous. In fact I think they got off very lightly - can a paper be shut down for breaking the law?

Finally why has Matthew Kelly been named when the "two former cabinet ministers" haven't?

I wonder if a high profile NOW editor or journalist who was in that suspected paedophile list, would they be named and shamed by their own paper?

Aloha you agree that anonymity is a good idea until a person is charged. You also say that's the way it's supposed to be - does this mean there is an agreement with the press? If so, the Matthew Kelly and Pete Townsend cases flout this big time. I am a bit confused :0 - is the agreement worth nothing?

I'm with you when you say if justice is being done in our name, we ought to know who is being prosecuted in our name. It's just the timing. At the questioning stage it seems too early, and makes it too easy for others ( from balckmailers to the press) to profit unfairly.

Reading through these messages it seems quite a few others are not happy with naming at the questioning stage, without saying that anonynimity should be upheld till after prosecution. Can't speak for anyone else here, but for the reasons you state - extra witnesses etc - I agree that names should be named after charging and before the trial.

I wonder if this discussion have taken place if Matthew Kelly had been named after he was charged? At a guess, far more people would agree that MK should be named.

By the way, I would agree with naming names before charging if it is commonplace for this to result in more witnesses coming forward so a charge could be secured. ie without these extra witnesses a charge could not be made. Is the press playing a key role in getting the guilty charged? do the police encourage the reporting of names at an early stage to secure the witnesses they need to proceed with a charge?

I just heard an interview with the police on the radio, and they said essentially that the papers should not name people until after charging, and that the 'big-name' headline could actually detract from the real issue of child protection.

That's interesting, musica. If this view is the commonly held one, I wonder why newspapers are ever allowed to name names before charging?

Interesting to see that Matthew Kelly was released without charge. That is the problem in this and other situations. He has not been charged but it is in the public domain that he has been accused. He bravely went back and performed in pantomime to loud cheers from the audience. What if he IS guilty though? Very tricky.

And, at the moment, he is innocent but he will be forever tainted and associated with this incident.

Not happy at all about naming people before they are charged. Maybe people should just stop buying trashy tabloids to make more of an impact (doubt it will happen of course). But it did have some impact on the Sun when their sales plummeted in Liverpool after their revolting coverage of Hillsborough. Saw that photo of Rebecca Wade schmoozing with Rupert Murdoch - yeuch!! These people are revolting, utterly unrepentant about damaging people's lives in order to make profit.

I see Matthew has been replaced already by Davina McCall on the next Stars in Your Eyes according to the paper.

Just read that Matthew Kelly is to carry on in panto after the audience gave him a rapturous reception. I read the article and admit that if it is true i feel really sorry for him, i know people say that there is no smoke without fire, but sometimes there are people out there who just want to make a name for themselves.

Just saw on Sky News that after a tip off they have raided his holiday home in Sri Lanka.

I think musica got it right when she said the problem is with the press. I don't believe that any accused person should be able to remain anonymous, but that if the press want to have the freedom to report this sort of thing, they should also take on the responsibility to report it properly. So much of the furore surrounding peadophiles has been caused by irresponsible and incendiary articles in the media. The rule that people should not be named prior to charging is being flaunted on a regular basis and is sometimes a real deterrent to actually getting justice - eg the Steven Lawrence debacle a few years ago.

As far as I understand it, the parliamentary commission considered this, but rejected it as contrary to the principle of open justice.

I have to admit, I was interested as to why a middle aged man would, apparently, keep a vast library of children's cartoons on video in his Far East holiday home.

BTW did anyone read the feature on internet paedophilia in the Observer on Sunday? A newborn baby being sexually abused while still attached to its mother by the umbelical cord.... You could not make up or imagine the depravity of this stuff. I am so glad it has become a huge priority for our police forces. The feature also suggested that up to one in five subscribers to these websites are active abusers of teh children around them, including in their own family. Thank God they've been exposed.

My dh and I have a large library of children's cartoons, all of which were bought before ds was born, none of which ds has watched.....we're just kids!

I imagine Jonathan Ross has a houseful of kids comics. I also read David Aaronovitch's article in the Observer and Janet Street Porter's in IoS (2 people I have a lot of time for) which were both very interesting as well.

I did read David Aaronovitch's feature and noticed that he said that he thought that people who subscribed to these websites were 'actually not more likely to abuse children than any of the rest of us'. Well, not only is that clearly nonsense (would 'the rest of us' subscribe to a website that showed a six and eight year old brother and sister having sex with each other as well as their stepfather??), but it is contradicted by the experts in the field who gave the one in five statistic I quoted earlier. Real children are being terribly harmed here. That's why I think the talk of 'witchhunts' is so wrong. There are no real witches (at least none that can harm us) but there are a hell of a lot of real paedophiles who do incalculable harm.

I also noted his description of the images as 'dodgy photos'. Two year olds in nappies being raped = dodgy photos? What kind of parallel universe is this?