I’m conflicted as to whether this is a good thing or not. On the one hand innocent people get tarred with the ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ brush, if that involves a sex offence it can ruin their life. On the other publicising a name, again especially in sex offence cases may embolden other potential victims to come forward and so strengthen the case against an attacker.
Because of the Cliff Richard case, and others, police can’t currently name suspects before they’re charged anyway, unless there’s a public interest to do it. Although putting that on a statutory footing would make sense.
I think this makes sense given how open information is to everyone now. Being falsely accused of a crime shouldn’t ruin your life. Let’s wait until convicted before publicly naming.
Well, her grasp of the law is so shaky she’d probably going to end up in the dock over botched immigration cases leading to death/injury.
So maybe this is just making sure her name is kept out of the papers.
How it is in much of Europe. Makes sense to me. I think it’s terrible that someone gets charged with a crime and the BBC publishes their photo, name, sometimes their street. Leaves a potentially innocent person and their family open to harassment and probably leaves a stigma long after the fact.
Just going to leave this here seeing as the big issue seems to be blacklisted for some reason
It’s fucking outrageous how many people are pulled through the mud before trial. Not only does it influence the jury but also public opinion. That’s before you even get to how fucking backlogged the courts are.
This actually seems like a sensible approach, if we still believe in the due process of being innocent until proven guilty then this should also be the case.
The potential harm done to someone when named a suspect is extremely unfair – once found guilty then fair game.
Suella Braverman has proposed something that not only isn’t actively malicious or incompetent, but something I agree with and find sensible.
I’m going to go and sit down.
Sounds good I think. How will it affect harassment of alleged victims too, which in cases involving famous people (eg Trump, Premier League footballers) has led to alleged victims dropping charges to get away from the harassment? There needs to be more safeguards against that too.
10 comments
I’m conflicted as to whether this is a good thing or not. On the one hand innocent people get tarred with the ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ brush, if that involves a sex offence it can ruin their life. On the other publicising a name, again especially in sex offence cases may embolden other potential victims to come forward and so strengthen the case against an attacker.
Because of the Cliff Richard case, and others, police can’t currently name suspects before they’re charged anyway, unless there’s a public interest to do it. Although putting that on a statutory footing would make sense.
I think this makes sense given how open information is to everyone now. Being falsely accused of a crime shouldn’t ruin your life. Let’s wait until convicted before publicly naming.
Well, her grasp of the law is so shaky she’d probably going to end up in the dock over botched immigration cases leading to death/injury.
So maybe this is just making sure her name is kept out of the papers.
How it is in much of Europe. Makes sense to me. I think it’s terrible that someone gets charged with a crime and the BBC publishes their photo, name, sometimes their street. Leaves a potentially innocent person and their family open to harassment and probably leaves a stigma long after the fact.
Just going to leave this here seeing as the big issue seems to be blacklisted for some reason
https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/exclusive-suella-braverman-claims-to-have-contributed-to-a-legal-textbook-the-author-says-she-only-did-some-photocopying/
Good!
It’s fucking outrageous how many people are pulled through the mud before trial. Not only does it influence the jury but also public opinion. That’s before you even get to how fucking backlogged the courts are.
This actually seems like a sensible approach, if we still believe in the due process of being innocent until proven guilty then this should also be the case.
The potential harm done to someone when named a suspect is extremely unfair – once found guilty then fair game.
Suella Braverman has proposed something that not only isn’t actively malicious or incompetent, but something I agree with and find sensible.
I’m going to go and sit down.
Sounds good I think. How will it affect harassment of alleged victims too, which in cases involving famous people (eg Trump, Premier League footballers) has led to alleged victims dropping charges to get away from the harassment? There needs to be more safeguards against that too.