WHY STOP THERE?
A House of Commons all party committee has recommended that persons arrested, or otherwise questioned by police, over allegations of historical sexual offences should not be named until they are actually charged.
Why? Why stop there? Why should only this category of suspect be treated fairly and decently under the law, thus preventing their lives being ruined even if the allegations prove to be spurious or there's no case to answer?
Indeed, as the committee has been dealing with matters of naming suspects, why haven't they cast their net further and recommended an end to the grossly unfair practice of naming men accused of rape?
In such cases, and on the basis that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, why are alleged rapists named at all in advance of a verdict, when the alleged victim remains anonymous throughout?
Anathema to feminists but, in fact, true equality, albeit not the sort of equality they seek.
Getting back to the identification of people questioned about historical sex allegations, the argument in favour is that the publicity may encourage other "survivors" (the word has crept in to replace "victims") to come forward.
You bet. Every female who has ever met the so-called perpetrator, no matter how fleetingly, will crawl out of the wood work and claim their bottom was touched 40 or 50 years ago and they have been in trauma ever since.
Where men accused of rape are concerned, that old cliché of sauce for the goose is good for the gander should apply. If the alleged rapist is named, then why should the accuser not be named? Are we not all equal under the law? Not when it comes to the opinions of feminists, of course.
If the police are right, and the naming of a claimant can help them with their enquiries, then perhaps the naming of a person accusing another of rape will bring forth witnesses who throw doubt on the case, for example that the accuser has made malicious allegations of rape against other men in the past.
It would be fairer for all, and probably easier and less controversial to legislate for, that men receive the same treatment as women and are not named. Easier to make it law as there is already the legal precedent applicable to women.
But if this is not to be, then women claiming rape being named and facing the danger of this type of exposure, should help reduce the number - in its thousands every year - making false allegations.