Callum Hudson-Odoi arrested on suspicion of rape.

[asahartford1]

Bloody hell.

Yeah he broke national lockdown rules, and we can all morally judge him on that, but rape is a very,very serious allegation. I find it truly absurd that an allegation like that can be allowed to be made public while the police investigation is still ongoing and no charges has been put forward yet.

Quite right.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Bloody hell.

Yeah he broke national lockdown rules, and we can all morally judge him on that, but rape is a very, very serious allegation. I find it truly absurd that an allegation like that can be allowed to be made public while the police investigation is still ongoing and no charges has been put forward yet.

Indeed, but that's news media nowadays. As soon as it's out, it'll be reported until the law is changed.

I haven't heard the BBC report it on TV yet, although it's on the website.

 

[Vialli98]

Indeed, but that's news media nowadays. As soon as it's out, it'll be reported until the law is changed.

I haven't heard the BBC report it on TV yet, although it's on the website.

In this case, the police themselves reported the nature of the crime and confirmed what he was arrested for.

That feels highly unethical and utterly unfair on the the person they've apprehended.

Putting out a press release that charges were dropped if it turns he didn't do it is the equivalent of a newspaper printing false information about a person on their front page and then printing a retraction in a tiny corner buried at the bottom of page 29. The cats out of the bag, the damage has been done, no-one is going to remember or care about the retraction after the initial front page headline has taken on a life of it's own.

Obvs it goes without saying, if he is found guilty then throw the book at the lad and I hope Chelsea rips up his contract, but until such a time, we will have to assume he is innocent.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

In this case, the police themselves reported the nature of the crime and confirmed what he was arrested for.

That feels highly unethical and utterly unfair on the the person they've apprehended.

Putting out a press release that charges were dropped if it turns he didn't do it is the equivalent of a newspaper printing false information about a person on their front page and then printing a retraction in a tiny corner buried at the bottom of page 29. The cats out of the bag, the damage has been done, no-one is going to remember or care about the retraction after the initial front page headline has taken on a life of it's own.

Obvs it goes without saying, if he is found guilty then throw the book at the lad and I hope Chelsea rips up his contract, but until such a time, we will have to assume he is innocent.

Just a question - are you sure that the police confirmed who it was? Their statements normally quote gender and age, but rarely a name. I don't know the exact process or order of these things though.

The name may well have leaked from somewhere ("hey Hudson-odoi got arrested", okay, let's go look at the police announcements in that area")

The bit at the end I agree with. There have been a number of similar examples in the past, I'm sure.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It's always been a controversial stance to name rape suspects in the press but it's done none the less, this happens more and more now where a mere accusation without going to the police gets published in the press and played out in the mainstream media (The USA are guilty of this a lot).

Interestingly though it's only ever been controversial to name rape suspects. If he'd been accused of assault or robbery or even murder, there would be absolutely no-one complaining that he's been named. And when you point this out, people might argue that no alleged criminal should be named until they've been charged (or found guilty), but the difference is that you never then see the same people making such comments about it on stories about other crimes. I wonder why these sort of comments are found exclusively on threads where rape is the alleged crime? And I'd argue that it's because we still live in a society where people instinctively doubt women who claim they've been raped in a way that we don't with other crimes.

 

[Vialli98]

Just a question - are you sure that the police confirmed who it was? Their statements normally quote gender and age, but rarely a name. I don't know the exact process or order of these things though.

The name may well have leaked from somewhere ("hey Hudson-odoi got arrested", okay, let's go look at the police announcements in that area")

The bit at the end I agree with. There have been a number of similar examples in the past, I'm sure.

They didn't name Hudson-Odoi, that was somehow leaked to the media, but the police did confirm the nature of the crime and what he was arrested for. If he's proven innocent, Hudson-Odoi can still do some damage control if the nature of the crime was kept classified, even if his name is out there in connection with the arrest.

 

[Vialli98]

Interestingly though it's only ever been controversial to name rape suspects. If he'd been accused of assault or robbery or even murder, there would be absolutely no-one complaining that he's been named. And when you point this out, people might argue that no alleged criminal should be named until they've been charged (or found guilty), but the difference is that you never then see the same people making such comments about it on stories about other crimes. I wonder why these sort of comments are found exclusively on threads where rape is the alleged crime?

That is because rape is the sort of allegation or crime that sticks with you for years.

Obvs depending on the nature of an assault, rape is in most cases a more severe crime than common assault or robbery.

Gerrard knocking someone out in a club hasn't followed him around like a bad smell the same way the rape case has with a certain ex Sheffield United player.

 

[mexico1970]

Interestingly though it's only ever been controversial to name rape suspects. If he'd been accused of assault or robbery or even murder, there would be absolutely no-one complaining that he's been named. And when you point this out, people might argue that no alleged criminal should be named until they've been charged (or found guilty), but the difference is that you never then see the same people making such comments about it on stories about other crimes. I wonder why these sort of comments are found exclusively on threads where rape is the alleged crime? And I'd argue that it's because we still live in a society where people instinctively doubt women who claim they've been raped in a way that we don't with other crimes.

There are double standards for sure, look at the high profile American politicians who in most cases get accused without any police involvement/ no official charges etc, whereas in this case officials were involved right away so he was mentioned as is the norm.

I'm torn on whether or not anonymity for both the accused and the accuser is the right option we should take but in the world of social media it's nigh on impossible to keep the lid on anything.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

That is because rape is the sort of allegation or crime that sticks with you for years.

Obvs depending on the nature of an assault, rape is in most cases a more severe crime than common assault or robbery.

Gerrard knocking someone out in a club hasn't followed him around like a bad smell the same way the rape case has with a certain ex Sheffield United player.

And murder doesn't? Yet I never saw anyone arguing, for example, that Oscar Pistorius shouldn't have been named until convicted. And a paedophilia allegation sticks with you far more than that of rape, and yet whenever we have a story that an alleged child abuser "can't be named for legal reasons" (i.e. to protect the victim) you have people complaining that they haven't been named. Of course the argument for naming alleged rapists is that there are plenty of rapists with a pattern of such behaviour and victims who don't come forward because it's such a difficult crime to prove.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

There are double standards for sure, look at the high profile American politicians who in most cases get accused without any police involvement/ no official charges etc, whereas in this case officials were involved right away so he was mentioned as is the norm.

I'm torn on whether or not anonymity for both the accused and the accuser is the right option we should take but in the world of social media it's nigh on impossible to keep the lid on anything.

I think America is a special case, because their laws mean that you can basically accuse anyone of anything and in order for them to sue you, they have to prove that it's not true (which in the case of rape, is just as difficult as proving it is, arguably more so). Whereas in the UK, people can't just come out with such accusations without evidence, because if it goes to court, they have to prove it. We have far stronger libel laws.