General Chat

I agree, anybody who allegedly committed a crime shouldn't be named - afer all it's only an allegation. Once proven guilty then it's a free for all!

The son of a friend of mine was accused of rape.
He and this girl had been out drinking. The girl woke up in his bed - knickers & tights still on - but she accused him of rape. His name was all over the papers stating that he was a rapist. He went to court, was found not guilty (the girl was then accused of wasting police time) - but the papers didn't splash his name all over the papers saying he was innocent!!

maggie

can I just added that by no means am I compering my mishap to that of the truama of being raped....no where near....

I don't think anyone should be named unless they are found guilty.

xx

Roxanne have you moved ?

However when I was mugged they caught him about 10 mins later and when I asked his name they wouldnt tell me . The first time I knew ,was when I received a letter that he had appeared in court. Infact he got more rights than I did.

i have to agree
some people are innocent and

makes people think no smoke without fire

i think it shouldnt allowed

luv n hug
stray
xxx

The main problem with people naming before it goes to court is that there is room for intimidation of either parties.

I agree,its not allowed here,for any crime!
which is correct in my opinion.

Totally agree. If found guilty that's the time to name them not before xx

I agree .....what happened to innocent untill proven
gulity.

However maybe I would feel different if it was one of my family...

I think the crime of rape is absolutley abohorant, however I think that naming someone before he is taken to trial and found guilty is absolutly disgusting, How many well known people especialy young footballers have been accused and named before a trial