ForumGarden

Michael Le Vell: WHEN will men get pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials? | Mail Online

The above article presents a good case.

As more and more Info emerges about the way Michael Le Vell was charged and named and shamed In the national press before a word of evidence was heard In court, should men be given the same anonymity until a guilty verdict Is reached?

Ask yourself this... how would you feel If It was you or your husband being accused?

The CPS originally ruled no charges to be brought against MLV and he was realeased until the mother of the accuser complained about the CPS and then they brought charges.

Why should the accuser remain anon when a media circus Is allowed to destroy the life's career and family of the accused ?

Do you really need to ask why we now give anonymity to the accuser in a rape case? If you do the it suggests you probably wouldn't agree with the reasoning.

As to anonymity of the accused when cases like child abuse and rapists get publicity it does help in bringing out further witnesses and victims. The problem is perhaps with the press and the salacious way they report things. Craig Charles had the same problem when he was accused of taking part in a gang rape.

I'm actually undecided but would like to see curbs putt on the media and what they report.

Anonymity all the way, does anybody actually come forward during a trial ?

I don't need to ask why the accuser or victim as the case may be, receive anonymity...What I am saying Is the anonymity Is granted to the accuser so Is It fair that the accused be named and shamed before a word of evidence Is heard In court.?

There Is a wider picture... MLV could have commited suicide, his wife could have walked out on him, his children could have disowned him, he could have been attacked In the street, his children could have been bullied In school etc etc

oscar;1435976 wrote: I don't need to ask why the accuser or victim as the case may be, receive anonymity...What I am saying Is the anonymity Is granted to the accuser so Is It fair that the accused be named and shamed before a word of evidence Is heard In court.?

There Is a wider picture... MLV could have commited suicide, his wife could have walked out on him, his children could have disowned him, he could have been attacked In the street, his children could have been bullied In school etc etc


Any or all of those could have happened even with anonymity - of course his wife and children would know of the accusations, they're too close for the anonymity to have any effect. What it does do is protect him from reputational damage amongst the wider public and financial loss from sponsers worried about their image.