TV host Paul O’Grady raps showbiz sex arrests ‘circus’

Liamario

They shouldn't be named until they are found guilty. Also, even if they are found not guilty, the public will always see them as guilty; that whole- he must have done something mentality.
As soon as they were charged, their careers were over.

bacon n eggs

ken barlow stuck up for kevin Webster too....hmmm and yes I know not real names.

CdeC

I agree, it's not fair.

If someone labelled you a paedophile and then afterwards you were proven innocent, people will 99% believe it but they'll still think "you were that guy accused of touching kids" when they see you.

Noone should be publicly named until it is proven that they have done it.

OneArt

mconigol wrote: »

Perhaps they should be given due process before being named and shamed, you know....on the off chance that they're innocent

This strikes me as a witch-hunter's attitude.

KenSwee

I agree with Paul Grady. Guilty until proven innocent. It's all about mass media short sharp news shocks hitting the news channels as fast as possible, without a concern for the aftermath.There will come a day when the news will be fact, weather it's true or not.

Latchy

KenSwee wrote: »

.There will come a day when the news will be fact, weather it's true or not.

That day arrived long ago ...it's called Fox ,Sky and CNN

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He's talking about people who have not yet been found guilty....

That wording suggests inevitability!

As does "innocent until proven guilty". I'd prefer "innocent unless proven guilty".

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That wording suggests inevitability!

As does "innocent until proven guilty". I'd prefer "innocent unless proven guilty".

That was absolutely not my intention, apologies if it came across like that. And indeed, during these debates on sexual allegations I would usually say "unless and until".

The problem is that we're barraged with lobby groups complaining that the conviction rate for sexual offenses is too low. Regardless of whether this is true, what this effectively translates to is stating "a lot of the people not proven guilty are still actually guilty", and "we should change the burden of proof so that you can still convict even with reasonable doubt".

It's my view that this barrage of media criticism only adds to the "accusation = social shunning" climate we live in, which ironically makes a lot of people far less sympathetic to such allegations.

Just out of interest, as a general opinion, do people think it's better to punish an innocent person wrongly than to let a guilty person go free wrongly?

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That was absolutely not my intention, apologies if it came across like that....

I didn't for a moment think that you intended it that way. I picked up on it because it looked like a lapse in expression of the very type you were arguing against - rather ironic.

But I was not being a grammar (or usage) nazi: I was trying to emphasise how easily one slides from noting an accusation to making a presumption of guilt. The line is worryingly thin.

Freddy Smelly

BBC is starting to stand for Bastards Buggering Children

RossPaws

Agree they shouldn't be allowed to release the name until the person is found guilty, but I also think Paul O'Grady probably should've kept quiet on it.

Of course he can say what he wants, and there's every chance that he's right and Rolf Harris is 100% innocent. But there's also every chance that he's 100% guilty, in which case there's genuine victims of his crime out there who have to listen to the likes of Paul O'Grady basically call them liars for coming forward.

Either way I do believe that it's wrong to release names of people who haven't been found guilty.