Publicly naming the accused.

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

If there was a bombing in Manchester and there was cctv footage of a dusky skinned chap with a beard, carrying a rucksack, near the scene of the crime, I’m presuming that all the ‘anonymity until proven guilty’ supporters would tell the police not to name him or show his photo on TV?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

If there was a bombing in Manchester and there was cctv footage of a dusky skinned chap with a beard, carrying a rucksack, near the scene of the crime, I’m presuming that all the ‘anonymity until proven guilty’ supporters would tell the police not to name him or show his photo on TV?

 

[Henkeman]

I put it to you that there's not a single other crime where you routinely disbelieve the victim until it's proven in a court of law. What if there is no accused? What if it was committed by a stranger where the victim didn't get a good look at their face but reports it to the police anyway? Is it wrong to call her/him a victim then?

Completely untrue. You are assuming a crime has been committed without it being proven. There are loads of examples of that. I am claiming that you assaulted me last night. By your definition I am a victim, despite it not being true.

 

[sir baconface]

If there was a bombing in Manchester and there was cctv footage of a dusky skinned chap with a beard, carrying a rucksack, near the scene of the crime, I’m presuming that all the ‘anonymity until proven guilty’ supporters would tell the police not to name him or show his photo on TV?

Oh so excruciatingly PC. Far better leave to leave the suspect on the loose than offend some diddums.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

If there was a bombing in Manchester and there was cctv footage of a dusky skinned chap with a beard, carrying a rucksack, near the scene of the crime, I’m presuming that all the ‘anonymity until proven guilty’ supporters would tell the police not to name him or show his photo on TV?

Well your presumption is wrong. The police could indeed be informed about the person you describe, and if they then choose to interview him that is also part of the process of catching the perpetrator.
What is not acceptable, is then naming and displaying the person prior to charging him.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Well your presumption is wrong. The police could indeed be informed about the person you describe, and if they then choose to interview him that is also part of the process of catching the perpetrator.
What is not acceptable, is then naming and displaying the person prior to charging him.

They catch very few criminals now but it’d be virtually none under your system. Not being acceptable to name and display a potential suspect?
They do it on crimewatch every week!

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Oh so excruciatingly PC. Far better leave to leave the suspect on the loose than offend some diddums.

PC? My post is actually aligned with your viewpoint not against it

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Well your presumption is wrong. The police could indeed be informed about the person you describe, and if they then choose to interview him that is also part of the process of catching the perpetrator.
What is not acceptable, is then naming and displaying the person prior to charging him.

So the guy (brother) that killed his sister and mum (recently) and was seen running away on cctv therefore being a public threat should not have been named by the police or press until he had been charged?

 

[happy daze]

So the guy (brother) that killed his sister and mum (recently) and was seen running away on cctv therefore being a public threat should not have been named by the police or press until he had been charged?

That's more than a little different from the publicity show around Cliff Richard or the Nurse recently who was named,her parents house shown on tv,neither have been charged and were not seen fleeing the scene of a murder.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

The Cliff Richard situation was salutary. What percentage of the population suspect he dunnit, despite not a scrap of evidence? He's now damaged goods, whatever the compensation or apologies. Very unfair.

I appreciate the points about encouraging other victims to come forward. But isn't there serious extra punishment for a convicted person who fails to have other offences taken into account? I think so but could be wrong.

Certainly is.
Stuart Hall got his second conviction sentence lengthened because he didn’t cough for it at the time of his first conviction.