Michael Le Vell is INNOCENT - should unconvicted men get anonymity in rape cases?

They seem to be doing OK. I think most people realised they weren't guilty.

I think the phone evidence played a part in the trial luckily.

She gave an inconsistent version of events by all accounts. That does lead one to believe that something wasn't right. However, you are right. She can't be called a liar for that.

But if she were anonymous then people could say what they like with out fear of her being branded for life.

I'm not talking so much about the case itself but the assumption many people made automatically that because a not guilty verdict was passed that the whole thing should now be turned and the spotlight should be focused on the accuser. As if somehow a not guilty verdict automatically means she was lying.

Feminists have been giving this argument for yonks and still claim rape convictions are low in comparison to other serious crimes. It doesn't work. All it does is ruin the lives of innocent men. What needs to be promoted and pushed more is that a rape crime is reported as soon as the crime is committed so the evidence is still there. Why are rape victims waiting for an attacker to appear in the press before they say something? Why are they being told to report it there and then???

If people wait till long after the evidence has disappeared to report it, how are the courts meant to differentiate between a genuine rape victim and an evil lying harpie with a vendetta against the man she is falsely accusing??

Basically, the principle of dealing with this crimes needs to change. Humiliating and ruining the lives of 10 innocent men in the hope one of them is guilty is wrong. Anonymity should be a basic human right until they are found guilty.

Do the accusers have a legal right to anonymity? Only because you do see cases in the media where the woman has been named and shamed for false accusation - how did this happen?

This is a difficult one but it is very important for both the accused and the victim that the name of the accused is public.

Think of the countries which have secret systems where their families never know what has happened to them. They just disappear. This used to happen here of course and that is why it was decided that justice needs to be carried out in public not in secret - for the benefit of the accused.

Bringing evidence that supports the victim's case is important and equally important is the bringing forward of evidence eg alibi evidence, that supports the accused. Arguably it is equally or more important that an innocent person is not convicted than that a guilty one goes free.

Neither can be sure to happen if no one knows the name of the accused until they are convicted.

It is surely better that they be found innocent after a public trial and an opportunity for people to come forward than that they are found guilty because no one knew they were accused and so couldn't defend them.

To allow the prosecution only to know what the accused are accused of, but not their family, friends or any others who could provide evidence is not going to help them,

Many people who have been wrongly convicted have been convicted precisely because vital evidence was not found in time. The police are professionals seeking evidence to present to the CPS to prosecute. The defence needs publicity to counter this. There have been many cases where the police knew things which would have helped the defence but they didn't declare them in court.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, all that's being suggested is that their identity not be publicised.

But if their identity is not publicised how are people to know that they have some crucial piece of evidence ? You can't know eg that you were in the pub with them at the time of the alleged crime unless you know who it is who is accused.

Just knowing some one or other is accused doesn't help one bit.

I would maybe like to see a system where names are published, but not offences.

It might be a middle ground so that the media can't ruin their reputation as effectively, but it could still allow other victims or witnesses to approach the police.

Agree with vaguity above.
Also, what about unconvicted women? Do they not deserve anonymity too?

Innocent until proven otherwise!. A sexual allegation , whether true or not, can ruin someones reputation. I wonder what will happen to the girl for lying and wasting police time....probably bugger all!!

I voted yes in the poll