http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... posal.html


Why not make it until they are convicted? Then they do not have to give special treatment to alleged rapists.

True. There is a stigma to being arrested even if you're not charged. People will always say "there's no smoke without fire".
It can ruin innocent peoples lives.

I do think that all the MP's who were charged would have liked the anonymity until convicted. It might not please us all but it does stop peoples reputations being ruined for no apparent reason. It could also reduce payouts by the police for such prosecutions.

Or maybe until they have been freed, or even died, just in case they were wrongfully convicted.

You do not need to restrict reporting that much.

Most of what they are looking to cover with this bill is, in theory, already covered under contempt of court laws, which prohibits reporting anything that may be prejudicial to the trial.

The problem is that those are never enforced against newspapers during the initial stages of an investigation, where nobody has any idea what is going on, but the papers have column inches to fill. This is when vicious character assassination fills the void nicely, allowing papers to run endless "is this man the evil killer?" stories rather than admit that they know nothing and neither do the police.

As things stand, assuming the person being maligned by Fleet Streets finest doesn't get lynched, their usual source of justice is through the libel courts. This is all very well, but once a national newspaper has run a story that you consort with paedophiles (on the basis that one once sold you a flat), or that you have the deranged features of a cannibal killer (because a man in the pub said he thought you look a bit like one) then half a million quid might not put things right.

Once a charge has been laid, the case for controlling media coverage under contempt of court legislation is simpler by far. Even the looniest editor won't permit their paper to host speculative nonsense about the guilt of a man who has been charged and is awaiting trial in the same way that will before then.

Charlie Brookers Newswipe did a wonderful demonstration of abuse of the media by the police. The asians who were raided in East London were accused of child porn and drugs, all the reports were unsubstantiated police comments. None of which were true. I think that a blanket ban on reporting such events till after conviction will protect innocents who are libelled by the police and media. Even a few days grace if the defendant plans to appeal.

Also libel courts are for the rich. If you were libelled your chances of getting redress are slim in libel court. No legal aid.

The flip side of quashing too much information going into the media is it makes it harder for the police to get witnesses coming forward I would suspect.

Not necessarily. Though I suspect that is what the police will say. They can still mention a crime and details even photos and CCTV footage.

I'm all in favour of this.