MP wants review of anonymity for rape accused

It's a tough one to call, but in summary, it seems others feel more confident coming out when they hear of someone else being effected e.g. once Max Clifford was charged more came forward.

It's a dilemma as it must be a nightmare to be falsely accused.

Yep sure is - the problem is though that its a stigma that will never go away.

In the MP's case it seems there was insufficient evidence not to charge him, so does that mean he's not guilty or as it states, there is no evidence?

Take a certain member of the Royal family being accused - what evidence of alleged historic abuse can be proved? Its surely one persons word against another?

Naturally we cannot discuss any case at any depth for legal reasons, my point stands though as im a staunch defender of anonymity until proven guilty.

If multiple people accuse a public figure of a crime it doesnt necessarily mean they did it.

Rape is terrible, i get that people feel violated and all that but the legal system is there to protect them all. You must report it at the time and not wait 10+ years to report it, just because someone else has made an allegation.

I also heard about Ched Evans contract being cancelled due to his rape charge too ... Only hope things like that make these youngsters think twice before doing it..

Really? You mean he should think to himself:

"I might lose my job/career if I go ahead and rape this girl. Hmmm, I guess i'd better not then".

Yep I agree fully there is just no way they could have given him that position ( even why they thought it was beyond me) Now by seeing that hopefully some youngsters will realise that ... I have heard he has not shown remorse for what he did .. Anyway in my book rape is rape

Re Chad Evans - I think there is a depth to the case that you may not have read. There are those that think they are at least mitigating circumstances to the alleged crime, even those that think he isnt guilty, himself included.

You could argue, as indeed he is, that if he feels that he wasn't guilty, then he has nothing to apologise for, especially as he has an appeal pending.

Back to the o/p - no accused should be named before a Court of Law has heard their case. The media can badge it how they like, but IMHO they are actually prejudging the case at the point of reporting an accused name.

The problem here is that the public have a right to attend trials, most members of the public don't take advantage of this wonderful day time viewing opportunity (but some do). However, the press have a reporter in court every day, more so in crown courts. Big cases often attract TV cameras outside of the court because everyone loves a juicy scandal...!

The media simply report what they see and hear, I accept they often put a bias on what they report because that sells more papers. However the public then devolp their own opinions, many years ago they were called lynch mobs.

so why don't we put people on trial behind closed doors? Well, power corrupts, the police courts and government would have a great opportunity to arrest people in the dead of night and to administer justice with impunity, without regard to due process and the rights of the individual. Ok if your not the one being dragged away. Sounds a bit like the emergence of Nazi Germany in the 1930's

if you live your life in the public eye then you can expect to be put on trial in a very public way. If you are Mr joe average, shoplifting in tesco's nobody will care.