Conquistador states "No matter what,men should not be blamed for being human." Nobody would blame them for being human. Human involves using the brain as in "Homo sapiens". He (I assume he) is equating "human" with "male", since the behaviour he excuses is shared with, for example, male ducks.

The problem with anonymity for a defendant is that in order to preserve the assumption of his innocence, it immediately implies the guilt of the victim. As this thread has shown, this is already implied rather too much. If the rape proceeded to murder, this would not apply. Or would it? Fred West claimed consensual behaviour on the part of his victims, who were unable to answer. One had a very able champion in the shape of her cousin Martin Amis, but because he avoided trial, others remained tarnished.

As for teachers, there has built up a history of proven false claims, but here the issue is not simply anonymity. An accused teacher would immediately be suspended, and their colleagues would be banned from contacting them, they would immediately be put into a sort of isolation and this could continue for over a year while cases were built. There would be a presumption of guilt. Now child protection is important, but the pressures of this sort of situation would be appalling. And how could the accused build their defence without access to potential witnesses?

Penny