snowychap Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 didn't Matthew Kelly get arrested a few years ago ...put through the ringer with the press only to be found innocent ..tv career more or less finished after it The first bit's right, I think, but the latter isn't. He dumped doing light entertainment on telly but he's had a fair few acting roles (including one as a serial killer) - as well as a lot of success on the stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 So im kinda right ..more or less his tv career finished after it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 So the logic behind naming the celebs is so that others can come forward without fear etc. Can see the logic in that, can also see how it may be slightly unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 So the logic behind naming the celebs is so that others can come forward without fear etc. Can see the logic in that, can also see how it may be slightly unfair Does this only apply to rape and murder charges? I'm torn between it really. The victims rights are more important than the accused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 7, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 7, 2013 CI, on 07 May 2013 - 10:27 PM, said: So the logic behind naming the celebs is so that others can come forward without fear etc. Can see the logic in that, can also see how it may be slightly unfair Not sure its the only reason myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 So the logic behind naming the celebs is so that others can come forward without fear etc. Can see the logic in that, can also see how it may be slightly unfair Does this only apply to rape and murder charges? I'm torn between it really. The victims rights are more important than the accused? There's a similar logic in stating that allegations of sexual abuse in music schools are under investigation, or saying in a local paper that allegations about a particular school or workplace are being looked into. It's not only applicable to celebs, though their case will be the most widely reported. The aim is to reassure victims that if they come forward, it will be taken seriously, and that others are doing so. It's necessary because there's such a long history of these things being covered up, as we all know, especially when they involve people in positions of power, and also because there's a certain shame about having been abused which often silences victims. Even more so when the abuse is same-sex, perhaps. People arrested for other crimes are named. Perhaps there's a certain stigma about being named for a sex crime and then acquitted, which doesn't happen with an accusation of theft. There's also an asymmetry, with victims being anonymous but alleged perpetrators not. That can start to feel like believing the accuser in a way which is different from other crimes, where there is the usual standard of proof. I don't think that's the intention, or that a lower standard of proof is accepted by courts, but it might give that impression. The purpose of the legal process is to respect the rights of both parties and ensure that a fair process is followed. Years ago, we got it badly wrong, allowing victims to be shamed and intimidated in court, and making others very unwilling to speak up. That's a pretty bad outcome. Should we name people accused at all? Well yes, if it encourages victims to speak up. Few people are reluctant to report burglaries or muggings, but many victims of sex crimes don't report them. Sometimes, people make false reports of having been a victim, either for revenge, or maybe because of a mental health issue. The usual lack of evidence in such crimes cuts both ways. I suppose the police approach of cross-referencing reports deals with that - how likely is it that one person would be the subject of several false reports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 I think it's incredibly difficult to find the best outcome. There are arguments in all directions and each argument comes with its own difficulties (and sometimes these are not so obvious like the importance of open justice to an innocent accused, for example). If one's ultimate worry about the meting out of justice is that the innocent are punished for a crime they didn't commit (the corollary being that the actual guilty party is thus unconvicted and unpunished) then I don't see why it should not apply equally to crimes of a sexual nature as to anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8, 2013 Torn between link in this in the religion thread or here. I found this place first, so... The Very Randy Priest - a children's story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 8, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 8, 2013 Torn between link in this in the religion thread or here. I found this place first, so... The Very Randy Priest - a children's story. likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 That's pretty funny even though I am a catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 That's pretty funny even though I am a catholic. Oooh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 8, 2013 Administrator Share Posted May 8, 2013 That's pretty funny even though I am a catholic. That's quite an admission. So you're a zombie worshipping cannibal, whose morals are dictated by criminals? Or do you just use the word as a label? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8, 2013 tbf he did use a small c... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 8, 2013 Administrator Share Posted May 8, 2013 He used it as a noun. It only has one meaning as a noun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8, 2013 Good point. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 8, 2013 Administrator Share Posted May 8, 2013 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 8, 2013 Administrator Share Posted May 8, 2013 Jimmy was a Catholic too. He was good buddies with several of the high ranking members of the criminal cult of zombie worshipping cannibals. (Have I got the tone about right Anthony?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8, 2013 I find your language very measured and even handed. Good work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) That's pretty funny even though I am a catholic. That's quite an admission. So you're a zombie worshipping cannibal, whose morals are dictated by criminals? Or do you just use the word as a label? Would you show the same lack of respect to other religions? Edited May 8, 2013 by PaulC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) That's pretty funny even though I am a catholic. That's quite an admission. So you're a zombie worshipping cannibal, whose morals are dictated by criminals? Or do you just use the word as a label? Classy. Is this really the thread to be directly patronising someone over their choice of religion? Edited May 8, 2013 by Ingram85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts