+1
Most people I’ve spoken to don’t care about what Brand has or hasn’t done. They care about the precedent being set by this case that anonymous accusations alone seem to be enough to destroy someone’s reputation and livelihood. To the point where government/parliament agencies will actively pursue private companies to ensure you lose your freedoms and ability to provide for yourself.
Not to mention the apparent removal of the “innocent until proven guilty” premise of our justice system.
Personally I feel that we need to remove the right to anonymity when making these kinds of accusations. Nobody should be allowed to anonymously hide in the shadows whilst publicly aiming these kind of accusations at others.
Interesting.
You arguing differently to many I hear who are arguing that Brand should have anonymity.
The accusations of course are anonymous until a point but then they almost always become public.
Its difficult. You can imagine the scenario where not allowing anonymous accusations would allow the destruction of evidence.
I am not sure how you apply the must be public angle. But the moment you do it could mean the accused would destroy evidence of that or other crimes.
You also of course have the possibility for witness intimidation or worse.
Say the person is a proper nasty piece of work. Girl #1 who was raped says "Mr Blobby raped me", its made public knowledge then she mysteriously then next week gets randomly beaten up in a club but no one can trace who did it, ends up with life changing injuries.
Does that not mean is highly unlikely girls 2, 3 and 4 will go erm no way I am saying anything even though I was also raped because I am likely to get the same!
I mean this is literally why in corporate settings the policies around this area specifically state that you will be protected from any retaliation and those attempting retaliation will be punished.
You always IMO fall back to there needs to be various options and ways to go about things. One set of rules rarely works well for all scenarios and cases at the limits will always test those very rules to the limit.
The press are a wildcard. I mean you could argue, let the professionals do their thing and make it illegal for the press to do anything.
Then refer to the Huw thread where many were claiming it was a police cover up and there was other things going on etc.
