http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care
This is her silhouette
There are already three high profile celebrities in court right now for sexual abuse and now this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
British female MP abused boy in care
- Thread starter justjohn
- Start date
- Status
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care
This is her silhouette
There are already three high profile celebrities in court right now for sexual abuse and now this.
ElectricBlue187
Member
How passive aggressive to show her silhouette.
I imagine it will take the internet all of 10 minutes to find that picture they used
I imagine it will take the internet all of 10 minutes to find that picture they used
It's interesting how it appears to be the opposite of how it works in these cases in the United States due to libel laws in the UK. Usually papers will name the accused, but not the accuser.
Calm down, bro. We all hate child abuse but she hasn't actually had a trial yet. Put down the pitchfork and noose.
I know who it is, but i can't reveal for obvious reasons, hence the silhouette.
That is the woman Louis Theroux spent time with. That would be kind of eerie considering he also had Saville on his When Louis Meets... Program. I guess it just goes to show how widespread these incidents are in all people who are in a position of power.
I don't want to speculate on who it could be, although the silhouette is basically asking for people to participate in this kind of reckless speculation. I hope the accuser gets justice for the abuse he has had to suffer.
oneils
Member
Why can't you reveal it? Seems weird. Like someone said up above, we usually publish the alleged criminals name but not the victim in Canada. Seems so backwards in Britain.
electricshake
Member
What about innocent until proven guilty? And I'm talking about a fair trial in an unbiased court room. Not trial by media.
The sad thing is, the treatment of children all over the world was probably worse before this time period. Since the beginning of time people have been viciously abusing children and the vulnerable classes of society. It's not just in the United Kingdom either. You find it in Universities in the United States like Penn State and among Catholic Priests around the globe. Something more needs to be done to eradicate this problem.
The first step is getting justice for those whose innocence has been taken from them and whose sense of security and trust in others has been abused.
oneils
Member
So you remind people that the allegation is not proven in court. Is there also a publication ban of the accused's name during the actual trial? If so that's kind of fucked.
What if she turns out to be innocent? In that case you've thrown someones name into the dirt, destroyed whats likely left of the rest of their lives and destroyed any semblence they had left of a career.
Running someones name through the mud before the trial should be illegal.
EdibleKnife
Member
That assumes everyone is extremely level headed enough to keep the respect of people related to the case (friends/relatives of the accused and so forth). "Did you know your friend/aunt/neighbor was a pedophile?", etc. No one needs that if there's still truth that needs to be uncovered.
CyclopsRock
Member
Usually, yeah. It's unrealistic to think that people won't be impacted by day after day after day of details and rumour, as long as it has the word "alleged" in front of it. Aside from that, though, especially with sexual abuse, it can ruin careers and lives and relationships even if they're found not guilty - a notable example in the UK was Matthew Kelly, who was a popular TV presenter, falsely accused and trialled for sexual abuse, who was entirely innocent, but he's basically never been on TV again. His life was ruined by the mere accusation (or, rather, it's totally public nature) and he did nothing wrong.
plagiarize
Banned
I don't think the solution is running EVERYONE who fits the vague description we do get through the mud instead. Look at the various names coming up in this thread and tell me it isn't hurting the reputation of everyone being linked to it.
This is largely how I feel about it. People won't remember that someone was acquitted of a crime, only that they were accused.
Even more so nowadays. An article like "Peter File In Parliamentary Paedo Party Plot" is going to stay online pretty much forever, even if the trial returns a not guilty verdict.
She is innocent until proven guilty.. The media can't send her to prison.
I'm guessing this is like Australia, where the only reason she's protected is because she's a former MP.
EdibleKnife
Member
It's not. Without any certainty, all people can do is guess wildly without really having anything to act on.
The media can't send her to prison. However, it does have a severe power to make people famous or infamous overnight. With a single broadcast, they could turn Ms. MP's family name into a joke.
Nicktendo86
Member
It's a really hard balancing act we need to get right, on the one hand we as a country can go totally over the top with the paedophile issue (such as with the bloke who was killed for taking pics of kids destroying his flower baskets or that paediatrician who was abused as some idiots thought that meant they were a paedophile) but on the other hand there seems to have been an underbelly in the in elite class of this country who were in on a massive ring, politicians, celebs, even the police and we have no idea how far this rabbit hole goes. Who was that poster on here who did a lot of research? he guy who created worms I think? Whatever happened to him?
oneils
Member
What about him. The page says he was arrested. Surely you can report someone's arrest if it is a fact. You just can't make stuff up. If someone was found to have made libellous statements, surely it was because the statements are incorrect or false.
As long as you are dealing with facts and not making them up it should be fair game. We report that people are under investigation all the time, because its true.
lazorexplosion
Member
If you think you know who it is, just keep it to yourself, there have been attempts to go after even anonymous internet commenters for defamation for posting names in these sort of circumstances. And it is terrible defamation if the accused is innocent.
If the accusations are the for real deal the name will be released officially in due course, otherwise let the accused have their right to privacy while the legal system is at work.
If the accusations are the for real deal the name will be released officially in due course, otherwise let the accused have their right to privacy while the legal system is at work.
Deaf Spacker
Memb
Some newspapers went absolutely nuts, pretty much saying that he was guilty because he looked weird etc.
He has successfully sued a few newspapers for libel.
MarkMclovin
Member
I hope we start to see some people put behind bars with the whole Saville scandal.
Seems it was ages ago it all blew up, then, nothing.
Seems it was ages ago it all blew up, then, nothing.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
He was hounded by the press and had his life ruined, articles going into detail about how abhorrent he was were printed almost daily and the nation, through the tabloids actions, made to see him as guilty and he became a highly hated individual, he had his life ruined and still to this day there are people that don't know the stories printed about him were untrue and he receives abuse. There is no greater example of the dangers of trial by the court of public opinion, instead of due process.
And he was innocent.
The papers are much more careful about treatment of accused now, but still not careful enough.
No, they can just ruin her life.
Nope; same rights extend to anyone accused-but-not-charged, although, to be fair, it may be the case that only the wealthy are in a position to act if somone breaks it.
Don't recall the exact rulings after a person is charged; I think it depends somewhat on the nature of the crime.
There were three trials over this scandal just yesterday!
The media can't send her to prison no, but the media can turn an entire population of gullible fools against said person before they're even convicted for whatever it is they've done. Someone bought it up before but look at Matthew Kelly. I don't think he ever managed to get work in the TV industry again even though he was found innocent in the court of law.
There's also been cases of people being murdered for supposidley killing a child even though they never did anything and the real culprit was found afterwards. Putting someone infront of the media is no different to putting someone in the stocks and having people throw tomatos/other rotten vegetables at them.
It's hardly causing as much damage as naming someone specific
I'm guessing they didn't name her due to threat of libel, which in Britain is no fucking joke.
oneils
Member
Good for him. The papers fucked up. They could have just stuck to the facts. Are papers now banned from publishing facts or is it a self imposed ban because of previous transgressions.
Baleoce
Member
No. The right thing to do is to remove the accused from access to children until the conclusion of any trial / investigation. They should however have the right to remain anonymous until proven guilty. The mere accusation against you these days can be a career ender. If they're found to be guilty after a trial, then throw them to the wolves. However I do agree with you about the selective process that people seem to be protected by. I went to a music school in Manchester called Chethams, and I read in the paper the other month that a violin teacher from there was going to be on trial for a similar case. Why does he get outed, and an MP not?
Kelly wasn't found innocent in a court of law. The charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.
These kinds of cases have people come forward at a variety of ages. Turning in respected community members is difficult. Imagine trying to convince people that a major politician abused you without being concerned with the depressing shame that a child would feel from this as well as the fear of people not believing you.
These people are able to commit these crimes as public figures because the children that they abuse are told that no one will ever believe them. These are children who are scarred during childhood.
Deaf Spacker
Memb
How is naming someone who may or may not have commited a crime a fact?
The person in the OP has not been found guilty, therefore it's not a fact that they were involved.
electricshake
Member
But they sure as shit can ruin her life. But that's ok, she might have committed a crime. And if she didn't, who cares?!
A lot of our older TV stars got caught up in it. As people came forward
Stuart Hall
Rolf Harris
Dave Lee Travis trail has just started seems the police are moving slowly but things are getting done. In Saville's case the fact that MP's and the like were no doubt involved means that the police have to walk on eggshells when approching that
oneils
Member
You report the arrest itself. That is a fact.
EdibleKnife
Member
Not every paper sticks to the facts and it only takes one headline to start the snowball. A factual newspaper could simply have: "IS MP'S NAME A PEDO?" and even though it's an unanswered question, people will roll with it. After all, you wouldn't accuse someone of being a pedo if they weren't actually right?
The victim is named because he went to the press.
MarkMclovin
Member
Yeah that's what I mean. It's kicking off again but I can't help but feel it's being kept as low key as possible.
- Status