Callum Hudson-Odoi arrested on suspicion of rape.

[Vialli98]

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 don't recall at which point during the investigation Pistorius was publicly named, but yes, my stance applies to that too. If it was before he was officially charged with a crime, then that is wrong and incredibly unfair too. If he has been indicted - meaning there was enough evidence against to formally charge him a crime - then by all means I have less of an issue with public naming.


What's your opinion on this? Do you think it's okay for persons of interest to outed to the public despite the investigation being 40 hours old.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I don't recall at which point during the investigation Pistorius was publicly named, but yes, my stance applies to that too. If it was before he was officially charged with a crime, then that is wrong and incredibly unfair too. If he has been indicted - meaning there was enough evidence against to formally charge him a crime - then by all means I have less of an issue with public naming.

But that's the point. When presented with this argument, everyone will say the same thing you just have. But you don't ever actually find them on threads or in the comment sections of newspaper articles about murders or other crimes, only rape.

What's your opinion on this? Do you think it's okay for persons of interest to outed to the public despite the investigation being 40 hours old.

I think it's not an easy call, but I think on balance, it's more important to encourage other potential victims to come forward than it is to protect the identity of someone on the chance that they might be wrongly accused. I'm not of the opinion that we have a spate of women accusing men of rape for fun, but it's almost certain that we have a large number of rapists walking free because of a lack of evidence. I think Harvey Weinstein would absolutely still be free if the allegations against him were not made public, for example. Imagine if one person had gone public about Jimmy Savile while he was still alive. It would likely have led to him going down, but if he was able to claim anonymity, it wouldn't. I would argue that the stigma about rape isn't caused by the nature of the crime, but the lack of success in getting convictions because it's so difficult to prove. Because of this, there's always a doubt about someone who was found not guilty, so it's in everyone's interests to try and improve our ability to prove these things one way or another. I'd argue that publicizing it does help get more certainty in some cases, but we don't know which ones beforehand.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

These things seem to leak for every footballer. I guess friends, those at the party, neighbours attracted by the lights, potentially people at the station... quite a lot of potential sources.
It does always seem unfair at the time.

 

[Vienna_70]

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.

So do I, mate.

And yet, an alleged victim of rape can remain anonymous.

 

[jamesha]

It sounds like a crappy situation and I hope that he is innocent and goes on to have a decent career but in some ways he has done us a favour by taking the spotlight off our own idiot Walker.

 

[Blue Mist]

I don't recall at which point during the investigation Pistorius was publicly named, but yes, my stance applies to that too. If it was before he was officially charged with a crime, then that is wrong and incredibly unfair too. If he has been indicted - meaning there was enough evidence against to formally charge him a crime - then by all means I have less of an issue with public naming.


What's your opinion on this? Do you think it's okay for persons of interest to outed to the public despite the investigation being 40 hours old.

@Vialli98 Here is my tuppenceworth, Nobody should be named as an arrested person for any crime. Mud always sticks. If on the odd occasion they evade arrest and go on the run I suppose that could be the exception but by and large no. Even when they are charged they should be allowed anonymity as a matter of law, any media outlet naming the person should be punished.
There are about 2,000 pages on the so called Westminster Paedophile ring in Off Topic where the names of so called suspects were discussed for months, if not years. Eventually it was proved to be the biggest crock of shit by the biggest liar in the world but that is no comfort to the wrongly named people.
One other example but I will not name him as it perpetuates the black mark against his name, a well known TV star was accused of Rape and it finished his career, his girlfriend later admitted making it up but it was too late.

 

[cleavers]

The wage footballers are on I bet its settled our of court, if its its true

Apart from that Sheff UTD chap years ago do any footballers get in trouble for this sort of thing?

You can do better than that mate....

Apart from that EX MAN CITY chap years ago do any footballers get in trouble for this sort of thing?

 

[cleavers]

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

Correct they shouldn't.

 

[kaz7]

So do I, mate.

And yet, an alleged victim of rape can remain anonymous.

You cannot want anyone who has been raped, if they have ,to be named just because the accused is,neither should be till end of a trial,if the man is found guilty he should be named,the women should not as she will have enough to live with

 

[Vienna_70]

You cannot want anyone who has been raped, if they have ,to be named just because the accused is,neither should be till end of a trial,if the man is found guilty he should be named,the women should not as she will have enough to live with

Where did I say that an alleged rape victim should be named?