Innocent
There is a tradition dating back well over 1000 years that any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty. In other words, an accusation doesn’t make someone guilty, it a court that hears the evidence and decides, either magistrates or, for serious offences a jury.
There is a worrying tendency today to pronounce someone guilty merely on the basis of an accusation and to demand that that person be treated as a criminal, losing their job and being shunned by society.
Take Huw Edwards. He was accused of dreadful crimes involving children and has, after a trial in which he pleaded guilty, been convicted. This is the point at which he should have lost his job, not back in 2023 when the accusations surfaced. Many years ago, I attended a CHE bonfire party held at the independent Labour Party tearooms somewhere outside Burnley. An older man recalled that prior to the sexual offences act he was charged and convicted for homosexual acts. His employers, the local council, waited till he had been convicted and then, and only then, handed him his dismissal papers. Of course, today he wouldn’t even have been in court, but the council did not assume he was guilty and continued to employ him until after the conviction.
Sexual crimes are abhorrent, and there may be a case for suspending a person from their job until the trial, but surely the principle of innocent until proved guilty should apply in these cases as well?
Now the mob is out, baying at the BBC and saying that Edwards should have been sacked on the basis of allegations or even when he was arrested. As a Liberal, I think the BBC acted properly in waiting to see whether he was found guilty or not. He would not have been the first person to be subject to unfounded malicious allegations. The mob logic seems to be to treat someone as guilty and then when found to be innocent claim the verdict was wrong. This a very worrying trend and some in our party are, alas, not immune from it.
I do wish our leaders and MPs would be robust in defending this basic right.
* Dr Michael Taylor has been a party member since 1964. He is currently living in Greece.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dominika the roving Braybrooke skunk is found again - in Corby
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Bye bye coal: A Net Zero milestone
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
Steve Trevethan
10 Comments
Excellent piece Mick ….
I can recall Dave Jones the football cleared of abuse charges – the effect it’s had on his career and family were terrible ..
Even last year we had trial by media in the Russell Brand accusations – the vast majority coming from an anonymous sources .
Allegations are not facts & accusers are not victims . .Far too many on the progressive left and abandoned those principles …
Michael, I entirely agree with you on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. One should not lose one’s job as a result of allegations made before a trial has taken place.
A more tricky area occurs if someone is arrested and an employer then suspends the employee on full pay until the court case is heard. There is an argument that this may sometimes be necessary. There is also a case for saying that if the employee is subsequently found guilty their employer should have a legal right to have wages paid during a suspension returned to them.
Perhaps their should be a code of conduct issued by the government to advise employers on how they should react in such circumstances. If an employer does not adhere to such a code of conduct then criticism by the media and others would be justified.
Totally agree Mick. Lisa Nandy is jumping on the populist wagon by demanding that Hugh Edwards repay his salary.
Kevin Hawkins is right that employment is a tricky area. The thing is that being a sexual predator doesn’t mean that person hasn’t always done their job properly and they haven’t earned their wages/salary. Huw Edwards didn’t stop being a good newsperson because of his nefarious activities. He did become an undesirable person to be on national TV. So, suspension is probably sensible until the trial, but withdrawal of wages isn’t, nor clawing them back after conviction.
I agree with Michael. I think this is driven in large part by jealousy over Huw Edwards salary. Could the BBC really not find a news presenter for less than £420,000 a year? Furthermore why 1984 style is all Huw Edwards’ material being removed from the BBC archive. For example the BBC spent out on compiling a history of Wales fronted by Huw Edwards. Now this is no longer accessible to the licence payers who funded it.
Absolutely needs saying Mick. Even BBC commentators have been pressing the case of an early sacking. I find myself too frequently shocked by the lack of understanding of this principle, both in the ranks of politicians and the media.
Thank you Mick for a prompt analysis of the state of play with Huw Edwards. In a curious way the Government response to developments (an unwitting legacy for the former BBC presenter perhaps) gives us an early warning of the populist/authoritarian baggage that Labour bring into their administration. Having the numbers but not enough politics can bedevil local authority control for any party but many Labour dominated councils in the north have shown over the years that it is not just the likes of Boris Johnson that can win significant overall majorities and then lack a clear compass for using power. Labour’s fear of the extreme right in their former heartlands will have a baleful effect on good government. Hopefully the role for Lib Dems in this kind of political environment is clear!
Clearly those who choose to advocate dire consequences simply because of an accusation, haven’t chosen to engage their brains. Michael Taylor is so right in what he says – the presumption must always be one of innocence.
Accusations are easily made. If innocence is not to be presumed, it’s not unlikely that in due course accusations are going to be made against certain politicians, for example, simply because they are seen by some to be a “nuisance”. How easy it would be to silence an MP in these circumstances!
I hope the people in the Party who castigated David Steel for failing to take action against the un-charged and un-tried Cyril Smith read this article and learn from it.
Is this principle credible in today’s society? If a crime is serious the suspect is remanded in prison so they cannot offend until their case is held. We can’t however imprison everyone suspected of crimes and the huge waiting lists for court cases does not help. Certainly the public should withold judgement and that includes employers and the media. There is also the issue of a fair trial that can be challenging especially if celebrities are involved.