blonde poker forum

A 19 year old Man Utd player has been arrested and bailed in connection with an alleged rape at the Utd Christmas party a couple of days ago...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7151624.stm

I think it's totally wrong to name the suspect in alleged crimes like this. Even if no charges are ever brought (hell, the woman might have made the whole story up), the player will have to live under suspicion (and ridicule as he's a footballer in this case) as so many people think "there's no smoke without fire"..

Or is there a reason for naming him that elludes me?

I tend to agree with you

The "alleged" victim in rape cases retains anonymity, correctly

same should apply to "alleged" perpetrator until convicted

I nearly agree, until charged for me.

The reason is simple - any suspect for any crime can be named (as long as they're not a juvenille). Rape is no different.

Of course, there is an argument that it should be different but at the moment it isn't.

Quite agree,

It must be devistating to be accused of crimes like this (or worse) when you're actually innocent.

I want to make a comment about profile people perhaps getting over it quickly because of their fans that support them, certainly like footballers but Joe Public that gets accused has staring eyes for the rest of their lives, but I'm not quite sure how to word it correctly!  I'm obvioulsy not saying he should thank his lucky stars (if innocent) but ........(more words needed)

I once read a great article by Deborah Orr in which she argued for giving suspects anonymity but allowing previous cases of alleged assaults to be used as evidence.

I would prefer that the press learn the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", although the Britsh press is so much better than Fox News in the States.

I think in the Peterson deaths and the Natalie Holloway case, Fox have already decided on the guilty parties, convicted them and handed down the punishment (... hanging ldo) and then repeat the same story again 1 hour later with the same result. [I should stop watching but it is strangely addictive]

was just saying the same thing to the misus. I don't think they should.

they never used to but since a case fairly recently it seems that anyone is fair game, can't remember what the case was though.

The alleged victim can remain anonymous and give evidence behind a screen or via video link on the pretense of feeling intimidated by the accused adding to the average person (magistrate or jury) feeling sympathy from the beginning,and when your innocent and found guilty,then appeal and for her to withdraw from giving evidence at the appeal the day before it is heard for it then to get initial ruling overturned due to her non appearance, guilty till u prove yr innocent,,,,,,

Well she got one of her wishes and it wasn't the anonymity.

excuse my ignorance and I would look it up if I could be bothered, but are court hearings open to the public?  If so, retaining anonymity until convicted would be impossible wouldn't it?

I agree suspects should remain anonymous as long as possible though unless there is a valid reasons for naming them (eg where someone's done a runner and DNA evidence has linked them to a crime).

There will always be a stigma attached to people named as suspects even if they're never convicted.  I read the other day someone had been arrested for the Rachel Nickell murder based on new DNA evidence but I'll bet plenty of folk thought Colin Stagg was guilty and got off on a technicality.  Same with OJ Simpson, proven innocent yet still presumed guilty by many.....

I knew a guy many years ago who was accused of rape. During the six months following his arrest, he lost his job, his flat, was beaten up three times and was stabbed once. The charges were eventually dropped but he still never got things back to normal. He ended up having to move a significant distance away. The girl went on to accuse two other men of the same crime, both times dropping the charges at the last minute.

A similar thing happened to a friend who was falsley accused of being the get away drive in an armed robbery (much too complicated to explain)

In both cases, their names were printed on the front page of the local newspaper and when they were proven innocent, that was reported page 9, column 2 (ish).

Doesn't seem very fair

It does seem really unfair to me too,

I agree, people shouldn't be named until found guilty.

How often do we read of someone being accused of Rape (in particular), being named in the local/national newspapers only to find out later that the "victim" was lying? At thus point all charges dropped.( shit still sticks in many peoples opinions)

But the "alleged victim cannot be named for legal reasons"!!! beyond me how the system works sometimes.