UKC

Given the despicable manner in which he dragged the name of Leon Brittan (and others)through the mud I'm surprised there's been no comment on these pages.

In reply to elsewhere:

Ditto my comments on the No Tom Watson thread.

I have no party political angle to push in respect to child abuse or rape ( alleged)

In reply to elsewhere:

Back to my thread a few years back saying that in such cases both the accused (and victims) should remain anonymous until convicted in pedophilia cases. It's grossly unfair on the innocent.

I know there's an argument that naming them encourages other potential victims to come forward, but they already have that option, have had it since the assault and will continue to have it . If they have chosen not to use it it makes the police work more difficult, but that's better than besmirching a completely innocent person.

It's a fine balance - which is worse? Publicly ruining the reputation of an innocent person or a pedophile avoiding conviction? I'd suggest on balance the former, because once ruined, a reputation is forever wrecked by the cloud of suspicion, whereas if a pedophile isn't convicted today there is always tomorrow. and such people leave a trail.

In reply to Trangia:

You ask: which is worse, an abuser going free or an innocent being accused?

One for one, I think you're right that it's the latter. But....

1. There's also an affect on future abuse - as you say, you might get them next time. But next time means another victim.

2. But then again, you might not get them next time. The nature of abuse means it's often one persons word against anothers and then those circumstances it's hard to prove beyond readonable doubt. So you often need multiple independent victims to convict and you need public allegations for this to happen.

What this means is that naming the accused prevents some abuse. So there's a trade off. Innocent men publicly accused versus victims abused. It's a horrible choice but as a society we have to make it and I think where we are now is better than where we were.

Also, remember this: unless the majority of accusations of sexual abuse are false then most men found innocent by the law are in fact guilty.

In reply to elsewhere:

Well Tom doesn't have the advantage of being a Goldsmith and married to a Rothschild / Guinness.

In reply to Donald82: I'm going to pick you up on your last line which I think is re. People getting cleared. You're implying that most people charged are guilty, that you don't trust the court system?

No smoke without fire and all that?

You're making a very strong case for anonymity if you really believe that as that means that everyone in court is assumed guilty no matter the outcome

In reply to wbo:
It's a fact that most allegations don't result in conviction.

So it's also a fact that one of the following is true.

1. Most allegations are false.

2. Most people that are accused but not convicted are guilty.

Which do you think is true?

In reply to elsewhere:

Maybe the whole edifice is crumbling:

"To a hushed Commons, Goldsmith said: “The Met has since confirmed that Cyril Smith visited ... It is impossible to believe there was not a cover-up.”
This week, a spokesman for the Met confirmed that Goldsmith’s claims were based on a statement that was released to the media in 2013 and 2014. It read: “The investigation has established that Cyril Smith visited the premises.”
However, the Met released a new statement on Thursday which makes no mention of Smith.
Zac Goldsmith urged to withdraw paedophile ring allegations. “Operation Athabasca [the new police inquiry into Elm House] is an investigation into an allegation of historic sexual abuse at Elm Guest House in the 1980s. No arrests. Inquiries continue,” it says.

Goldsmith is facing calls to withdraw claims about MPs involved in abuse at the home. He has refused to do so."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/16/police-withdraw-claim-that-...

In reply to wbo:

Ps 1. I don't think everyone should be assumed guilty. I just think if you're considering whether accused should be named, you need to realise it's very few people that are innocent and accused.

2. the court system isn't designed to convict all guilty people for anything. Lots of guilty peopke get off becsuse there's doubt - that's the way it should be.

In reply to elsewhere: your point 2 directly contradicts point 1.

That's a very difficult and dangerous position to hold, and directly contradicts 800 years of legal tradition. If I were to accuse you of committing such a crime it would leave you to disprove that despite the lack of evidence to counter. You would also need to be able to harshly punish false accusations else making false accusations becomes a rather effective weapon.

You will find few takers for guilty till proven innocent

In reply to wbo:

I'm not arguing for guilty until proven innocent!

I entirely agree that for criminal charges a person is and should be innocent until proven guilty IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. That that doesn't mean they actually are innocent though. Very clearly, most accused abusers that are not convicted are guilty.

And this doesn't mean I don't trust the courts - if they do their job properly lots of guilty people go free because often there's reasonable doubt.

And it doesn't mean you should assume guilt. Take each case on it's merits.

In reply to elsewhere: your paragraph 2 clearly states that you believe people are guilty till proven innocent. How else can you interpret the last two sentences. 'Very clearly, most accused offenders that are not convicted are guilty'. If it's clear, then why no conviction? Even people cleared are 'very clearly' guilty?

What level of evidence of innocence do you want?

In reply to wbo:
Intetpret like this - It's clear that most are guilty but it's often not clear which ones are guilty. So often you have to aquit guilty men. Which is a price worth paying to avoid sending inocent men to jail.