The BBC suspended one of its male presenters on Sunday after he was accused of spending £35,000 buying explicit images from a young person who spent the money on crack cocaine.
Where does the expectation come from that the public has a right to know the identity of a person accused of something or even the identity of an alleged victim of a crime?
Accusations like that have been proven to be wrong in the past and the life of accused people has been ruined by their identity becoming public knowledge. The same has happened to victims who not only have had to live with the results of the crime, but also with the public stigma.The expectation comes because the BBC has a long history of covering up for and protecting rapists, abusers and paedophiles.
Which is shameful and disgusting but should not have any influence about how this case is handled.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Perhaps not, but it does.
Nah. Unfortunately people can be found innocent in court of a crime they actually did commit.
I’d say if there was overwhelming evidence that he did it, then he should be named and shamed.
Really? Shoot. I am sure Jim’ll Fix It.
It’s crazy to me how not naming people in legal matters is not the norm in huge countries like the US.
In Sweden (where I’m from) we do not get to know the name/face of anybody involved in legal cases. Unless they want to. This is no matter if they get punished or not.
I can talk from a UK perspective.
Whilst investigating someone, the police should not normally release the name of the person because it could endanger their life or lead to disorder.
The media are free to name suspects BUT get it right or have the ever loving shit sued out of them. This is even as far as naming a small group of people.
Once charged, then police release the names, it becomes public knowledge. Where it’s serious cases like rape or child abuse then it’s often proactively released. This is because it helps gather evidence or get others to come forward.
deleted by creator
