The big story of the past few days is the questioning of veteran entertainer Rolf Harris by police over historical allegations of sexual offences.
Coming as part of the on-going Yewtree investigation into Jimmy Saville, related cases and others that have come to light, The Sun ran with the confirmation Harris had been questioned this week after Twitter revealed it many months ago.
Though I was shocked by the revelations regarding Saville if this latest celebrity in the spotlight is true of the accusations I think it will be more shocking.
But, as of yet, we don't know anything. Max Clifford and Jim Davidson have also been accused and no charges were brought and this could be similar. But, whether he is guilty or not - and it's not my place to argue for or against - I feel the release of his name smacks of one rule for one, one rule for another.
Until proven guilty his name should remain protected. The only one benefit of releasing the name of an accused is to try and get other people who may have been abused too. However, in doing so, if he is proven to be innocent, his reputation will be tarred by these allegation.
You only need to look at the case of Matthew Kelly who was named in the press but subsequently cleared and though he has re-built his career, it did him and his career damage and still now people could well associate him with such accusations even though he was declared innocent.
I think there is a feeling now that because the behaviour of Jimmy Saville was left unchecked for so many years and him escaping justice in death (but also escaping the chance to defend himself) that they're trying to get people as quickly as possible.
In many ways I do hope Harris is innocent as he was a big part of my childhood and a big part of the nation's fabric as one of our primary entertainers. And if he is innocent we have to ask: why do we put people and their families through these things in the press?
And if he is guilty, why is not granted anonymity until he is proven to be so? Victims, quite rightly, get the right to remain anonymous, but so should the accused until the evidence confirmed they are guilty.
What are your thoughts on this case?
Saturday 20 April 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment