SJN-Fox
Well-Known Member
I suppose in theory that works. And the tarnishing of being accused is very unfortunate. In practice, however, should an accused rapist then be found guilty keeping his name anonymous would certainly cause some issues wouldn't it?
If, for example, a teacher was accused of rape, his name kept anonymous, and then convicted I would suggest that the parents that were not informed of these charges prior to conviction would have every grounds for anger.
I'm not a stupid man, don't accuse me as such. I just don't think the issue is as black and white as you make it out to be.
If a teacher was accused of rape, why would parents need to be informed?
Besides, a few angry, non involved, non victims is of little consequence when compared to a tarnished reputation for having done nothing, especially if this is a person already in the public eye (example ... John Leslie), who, given the nature of the great British public, will be tried, found guilty and hanged before they [the public] have even finished reading the story.
Last edited: