Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
What possible public interest could be served by revealing the name of the accused when they (I quote Osem here) "can have their entire lives turned upside down and even destroyed when there's no evidence at all."?
What possible public interest other than gossip could exist?
|
Yes, maybe someone could explain that for us and what attention is ever paid to the impact on innocent families, children etc.
It's perfectly obvious that achieving political advantage is a key factor in much of what's going on here with regard to Westminster. In the current media feeding frenzy we're witnessing a great many people have been so keen to smear their opponents at every opportunity that they've overlooked possible skeletons in their own cupboards. It's very unedifying and says a lot about the sort of people some of our political masters are and what depths they'll plumb to get their way.
---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
In the case of historical allegations a case can be built up by more people coming forward to the police and their testimony being similar. If there are details to the assaults that show a pattern and those details were not public then the prosecution can use that in court. If Saville had been alive when it all came out then that's how they would have gotten him because in the end all these women had similar stories.
|
All the more reason for the media not to publicise the very 'facts' which could be used by others to make false claims. Let's be clear, that right now innocent people are being subjected to a process of investigation which leaves them being treated as guilty until proven innocent for very long periods of time with permanent damage to their lives, careers and finances. I don't see how that can be justified at all.