Stuart Hall has been found guilty.

[merehazle]

:_|

[salfordmarinade]

The question of anonymity for claimants in such cases mainly rests on encouraging victims to come forward in those cases
That's largely a recognition of fact, and ultimately a hope that with more cases prosecuted it will act as a deterrence and an indication of a willingness to address the problem at least from a prosecution point of view. That in itself will go some way to changing perceptions over time.




There seems to be some confusion between what happens in the legal process, and what happens in the media in particular the tabloids. Tabloids generally name those accused where they think it will increase circulation/readership. Ask any hack why, and you are very likely to get a well worn answer..it's what our readers want, if it wasn't we wouldn't publish it. . Really here there is an element that if you really don't want it, don't buy/read it.That said, I think there are substantial grounds for curbing tabloid excess in various areas.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The question of anonymity for claimants in such cases mainly rests on encouraging victims to come forward in those cases

That implies that there is still a level of shame attached to the victim in such cases which needs to be addressed.  Reinforced when a rape victim comes forward and speaks publicly about the events and is called "brave".

I'm not saying that anonymity should be removed at the moment but I do think the matter of how we perceive victims of sexual assault needs to change so that in the future there will be no shame attached to victims of such crimes, either by society or, probably more importantly, by the victim themselves.

[salfordmarinade]

It's a rather odd question to pose within the framework it's been given.

You don't change those attitudes by letting more offenders go free, that is simply a retrograde step.

Factually if you remove anonymity, I believe most of those involved within this area will tell you the reporting of those offences will markedly decline. If so less crimes will be prosecuted, and more criminals will not face punishment, because the crimes will go unreported and as such it will reduce the detterence effect of any law.
I don't think it sends out any such indication of the type you are suggesting, it's simply a recognition of fact, and a signal if any, that the prosecution service recognise that and are willing to address the issue in order to help prosecute offenders. If you believe otherwise I suggest you pose the question to those agencies involved with the victims, to help you understand.

If you are actually concerned with societies perception on this issue, to save confusion and misunderstanding,you would be better advised to address that issue in a clearer way, and not confuse it with other issues.

[right-then-petal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22385464

makes one wunder why allthe fuss when a judge do,es this

[upthecreekyetagain]

I don't think it sends out any such indication of the type you are suggesting, it's simply a recognition of fact.

The "fact" that publicity does/would prevent victims of sexual coming forward - A "fact" that most, including myself, accept.

Is it wrong to ask why lack of anonymity has such an affect when in general the same can't be said in general about victims of other sorts of crime?

If it's not a perceived sense of shame by either the victim or society, or both, then what is the reason for this "fact"?

If you are actually concerned with societies perception on this issue, to save confusion and misunderstanding,you would be better advised to address that issue in a clearer way, and not confuse it with other issues.

What other issues am I confusing it with?

[salfordmarinade]

The "fact" that publicity does/would prevent victims of sexual coming forward - A "fact" that most, including myself, accept.

Then why frame your question in such a way, unless you are happy to have more criminals go free?

Do you think naming would send out a believable signal that it's all hunky dory now so no problems reporting, clearly not if you accept that reporting of such offences would decline.

Is it wrong to ask why lack of anonymity has such an affect when in general the same can't be said in general about victims of other sorts of crime?If it's not a perceived sense of shame by either the victim or society, or both, then what is the reason for this "fact"?

If you need to have that explained, as a husband and a father of a daughter, given your age, I think you should take serious stock.

Again the same can be said of your last comment. If you are concerned with public perception on this matter than muddling it with the issue of anonymity and the effects that is likely to produce makes it unclear as to anyones actual motive for doing so.

[al**bear]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22385464

makes one wonder why all the fuss when a judge does this

In Inverness last year ,

An 19yr old man in full employment, who had never been in trouble with the Police was sentenced to 3 mths in prison for singing, what was deemed a sectarian song.

 Sheriff Ian Abercrombie, on jailing him went into a full tirade (for the media?), about this "despicable crime" etc etc

So in the same court the next week --

Sheriff Ian Abercrombie- sentenced a 48 yr old man to 200 hours Community service for

 Having over 1400 pornographic images of Children on a computer and flash drive

[upthecreekyetagain]

Your thinking is most confused.

Do you think naming would send out a believable signal that it's all hunky dory now so no problems reporting, clearly not if you accept that reporting of such offences would decline.

I have made perfectly clear my position - I quote

"I'm not saying that anonymity should be removed at the moment"

"The "fact" that publicity does/would prevent victims of sexual coming forward - A "fact" that most, including myself, accept."

Do you think naming would send out a believable signal that it's all hunky dory now so no problems reporting, clearly not if you accept that reporting of such offences would decline.

This where you are getting muddled!

In an earlier post you responded to my comment, "That implies that there is still a level of shame attached to the victim in such cases which needs to be addressed" by stating -

"I don't think it sends out any such indication of the type you are suggesting, it's simply a recognition of fact"

You have pointedly not replied to the question I posed, "If it's not a perceived sense of shame by either the victim or society, or both, then what is the reason for this "fact"?"

It's all very well saying, as you have, that as a father and husband I should know why anonymity is important - I DO know why it is important at the moment, it is because of society's attitude towards the victim and the victims own self esteem conditioned by society's attitude.

You don't accept this as the reason apparently so perhaps you could answer the question as to why lack of anonymity for the victims in such cases does undoubtedly reduce the number of victims coming forward.

[salfordmarinade]

I doubt you could tell the difference.

That is your orginal post.

Looking at it from the other angle I would ask the question as to why the name of the victim is kept secret in such cases - after all we don't live in a third world country where women who are raped or assaulted have anything to be "ashamed" of.

That says nothing about your so-called later position. Either it's incredibly naive, or extremely muddled to use your own terms

If you already know the answers as you later claim, then why pose the question in such a way in the first place only to have to retreat into more specifics when challenged?

Far better and far more honest to make it clear in the first place

I answer in the way I choose, not you. If I don't accept your terms and usage there are good reasons for not doing so since I don't believe they address the issue suitably and ought to be fairly well understood by anyone of reasonable intelligence whose life doesn't revolve around low level pedantry in a vague hope of believing like the 'nutter on the bus' that the last post must win

The answer to those not covered by the above is already there and quite self-evident

[upthecreekyetagain]

Yes I posed the question and I see nothing wrong with the way in which it was framed - it highlighted the plight of women both in this country and others and how it is related.  Framed in a way to elicit exactly the response it did.

If it is not the sense of shame, conditioned by society's attitude to rape victims, that necessitates anonymity for the victim, (the same sense of shame and persecution that victims in other societies suffer), then I fail to see what is the reason. 

You have stated quite clearly that you don't believe this is the reason for the need for anonymity but fail to proffer the answer to the question.  The only conclusion I, and maybe others, can draw is that you don't know why it is necessary, only that it is.

Yes, you know what would happen if there were no anonymity but you don't appear to know why this is.

My position is very clear - societies, ours and those of other countries, need to change - change in a way that will allow women, (and men), to openly say, "this person raped me - I want justice"

[salfordmarinade]

You have stated quite clearly that you don't believe this

Again you are putting in words that were not said because others dont agree with you.

so its distortion time again. What I said was I dont agree with your terms and usage and believe it's an over simplification, and it would have been better at the forefront of your question had you been actually interested, not clouded by reference to anonymity for unknown purposes

I doubt you have any idea most of the time other something you can retreat from by any method available, and claimincoherence was all some pre-determined plan lol.

If as you claim you know that reporting rates will drop and that offenders will therefore not be prosecuted then why frame your question that way since you later claim to know the answer?
If additionally it's to point out that the following as you say, then why confuse it with anonymity rights?

Quite frankly some cases will go unreported even with anonymity, but if as you say

 it is because of society's attitude towards the victim and the victims own self esteem conditioned by society's attitude.,

then why say

after all we don't live in a third world country where women who are raped or assaulted have anything to be "ashamed" of.

It's rather disingenuous/muddled/confused to put forward both of those since you appear to believe the latter ought to be the case, but seem to say the former is the case.

Victims  respond to their situation, not your muddle

Far more honest to put your position and question honestly rather than perpetually "hoof" it all the time


If you are actually concerned rather than pedant picking because life is too unbearable without some distraction, then I suggest as before you discuss the matter with the agencies concerned.I am sure they would  be delighted to hear your views, assuming you can manage to shape them into some coherent  form without being prompted by others

[upthecreekyetagain]

You have stated quite clearly that you don't believe this

Again you are putting in words that were not said because others dont agree with you.

so its distortion time again. What I said was I dont agree with your terms and usage and believe it's an over simplification, and it would have been better at the forefront of your question had you been actually interested, not clouded by reference to anonymity for unknown purposes

What you actually posted was, "I don't think it sends out any such indication of the type you are suggesting, it's simply a recognition of fact"

By all means clarify what you do mean by answering the question which you have so far refused to do and give the reason why anonymity for victims is necessary to encourage victims of sexual assault to come forward.

If as you claim you know that reporting rates will drop and that offenders will therefore not be prosecuted then why frame your question that way since you later claim to know the answer?

I was always taught that during debates you never ask a question that you don't know the answer to.

If additionally it's to point out that the following as you say, then why confuse it with anonymity rights? Quite frankly some cases will go unreported even with anonymity, but if as you say

 it is because of society's attitude towards the victim and the victims own self esteem conditioned by society's attitude.,

then why say

after all we don't live in a third world country where women who are raped or assaulted have anything to be "ashamed" of.

Am I missing something here?  You have put my argument in a nutshell.  I do believe it is society's attitude in this country towards rape victims that conditions them to believe that there is a reason to feel shame about being raped. 

I have stated my position on this matter quite clearly, you have spectacularly failed to do so with regards to your own position.  It is probably best to leave it at that.

[bankhaunter]

Algas - I was simply posing the question

The names of children, in my opinion, should always be kept out of reports because of the reaction of their peers.

When it comes to adults though I think the question should be asked.  There have been a number of threads in the past on here criticising quite rightly those societies which lay blame and shame on a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted.

By saying that the names of women involved in such cases should be kept secret aren't we also implying that in our society there is also a level of shame attached to such cases ?:|

Something we should be ashamed of.

It doesn't need to be implied it openly exists, even the victims themselves feel at least partly to blame.

55% of those surveyed said embarrassment would stop them reporting a sexual assault, knowing their name would be made public would considerably reduce the number who do report. .

http://www.thehavens.co.uk/docs/Havens_Wake_Up_To_Rape_Report_Summary.pdf

Some of the comments on the BBC news article on the report include.

Sadly, the main reason my marriage ended was because my then wife couldn't take any responsibility for her attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8516519.stm

The question of the defendant's possible anonymity has often been raised and the case of SH. is a good example why it should not happen, I do however think there is an onus on the police to be a little circumspect at the very start of an investigation.

Unfortunately I am sure that there are some cases where the chances of a successful prosecution or even a charge being made are slight but the threat of publicity is sufficient for the suspect to accept a caution and be put on the Sex Offender's Register.

Operation Ore was a prime example where thousands suffered investigations simply because their CC details had been stolen.

[salfordmarinade]

That relates to anonymity issues which is where your muddle began so im afraid that is another fail
What I clearly said was not what you posted, though that is nothing unusual
I said I do not accept your limited terms and usage because it fails to cover what can be quite wide ranging issues. That means it's over simplified and not much real use.

As I don't believe there is  any real interest apart from the usual shoe scuffing and bottom lip exercises, any further elaboration is rather pointless, but the issues are fairly self-evident and not some Surrey revelation

I was always taught that during debates you never ask a question that you don't know the answer to.

might explain why the learning curve went horizontal then at an early stage

If you anyone had any genuine interest then I would expect them to be able to express it in a clear and honest way, not to have to squirm their way to whatever exit they can find.

it highlighted the plight of women both in this country and others and how it is related

:^O

I must have fallen asleep with boredom and missed that bit. Perhaps include world peace and a nobel prize there as well


 

Am I missing something here?  You have put my argument in a nutshell.

Quite a lot really lol
Bit sad for you then that others can put in a nutshell your position in a few lines and it takes you several posts whilst still not being able to do so. Positions that have to be drawn out like removing teeth have little bite

[upthecreekyetagain]

What I clearly said was not what you posted, though that is nothing unusual

I will simply refer you to your post at #22 and leave others to decide what you did or didn't say

It's a rather odd question to pose within the framework it's been given.

You don't change those attitudes by letting more offenders go free, that is simply a retrograde step.

Factually if you remove anonymity, I believe most of those involved within this area will tell you the reporting of those offences will markedly decline. If so less crimes will be prosecuted, and more criminals will not face punishment, because the crimes will go unreported and as such it will reduce the detterence effect of any law.
I don't think it sends out any such indication of the type you are suggesting, it's simply a recognition of fact, and a signal if any, that the prosecution service recognise that and are willing to address the issue in order to help prosecute offenders. If you believe otherwise I suggest you pose the question to those agencies involved with the victims, to help you understand.

If you are actually concerned with societies perception on this issue, to save confusion and misunderstanding,you would be better advised to address that issue in a clearer way, and not confuse it with other issues.

[salfordmarinade]

:^O

I thought you had gone....again lol
Let me educate you, since clearly you've flat-lined
As it says, the signal anonymity sends out if any, is a recognition of fact, namely there are many reasons why such crimes are not reported, and anonymity in such cases offers some scope to help address some of those issues and shows a willingness by the law to address them. Your argument that must be agreed with if the toys are to remain in the pram is that its a one term, one dimensional view. I simple don't accept that as anything other than a rather limited late-in-the-day arrival and fails to understand much wider issues

It's a pity your supposed position had to so convoluted, but enjoy your horizontal line, ideal for nobel prizes:8}

[upthecreekyetagain]

As it says, the signal anonymity sends out if any, is a recognition of fact, namely there are many reasons why such crimes are not reported, and anonymity in such cases offers some scope to help address some of those issues and shows a willingness by the law to address them

Reasons that you have singularly failed to state whilst at the same time refusing to accept what most, (including as Book has pointed out, the victims), see is why anonymity is important - society's attitude towards the victims and the shame they have been "conditioned" to feel.

Suggesting I have a convoluted position is laughable coming from you  - I stated my full position in just two posts - you haven't even stated a credible position after too many to count ?:|

[salfordmarinade]

:^O

self control old chap, self control

I didn't know "book" had posted, perhaps you can give the post number;-)

If it was so important why raise the issue since it's clear what the result would be, so it's a complete waste of time and suggests a lack of candour

Simply address the issue in clear terms rather than let others draw out a position seemingly based on guile

I am not so arrogant as to summarise many situations by simply one word, I leave that to others and their horizontal "drifts".

[upthecreekyetagain]

[malacandran]

The above posts show vast verbal diarrhoea.  But they don't seem very sensible. Just showing off, obviously.

Very impressive!  Are the posters embryonic politicians?