This is from yesterday, but is another prime example of the ConDems going back on their word.
*sigh*.
I’ve rehearsed the argument against the status-quo here and here.
Anonymity for both parties or neither is the way forward. Instead, we’re going to get a bullshit toothless compromise.
AJ
Al Jahom's Final Word 
This has made my blood boil, how many times have we seen innocent people have thier pictures spead all over the press only for it to be found out that the woman has made up the rape story.
The best option would have been no names released until after the trial, if there was a not guilty verdict, both parties names to be relased. If there was a guilty verdict then the victim is kept hidden but the guilty party could be identified.
As it is now, innocent peoples lives can be ruined on the word of someone who has a grudge to bear.
Surely this is contrary to ECHR law? It is one sided. With a large number of false allegations over rape there should be an “Arizona Law”, a 10 year minimum sentence for malicious accusations. Perhaps that would stop the likes of Anne-Marie Hackett from mendacity?
Pingback: Anonymity for suspects « Al Jahom's Final Word
Pingback: False Rape Claims « Al Jahom's Final Word