I knew someone charged with having large amounts of CSAM. He was also named in local media before conviction, although you really had to go looking for it to find it.
More importantly perhaps, he was a scout leader and his scout group were informed, I believe by the police, as early as the investigation began - i.e. before being charged, let alone convicted.
Given the topic of the investigation, as much as I think people not yet convicted should be treated as innocent, I also think the public has a right to protections in cases where there is a plausible threat. In this case regardless of his guilt, there was a plausible threat to children under his care.
The problem is that if you tell a scout group you're telling the parents, and it only takes one to make a stink about it for it to spread. Sadly, although perhaps expectedly, the nuance of plausible threat vs conviction is often lost in times like this.
More importantly perhaps, he was a scout leader and his scout group were informed, I believe by the police, as early as the investigation began - i.e. before being charged, let alone convicted.
Given the topic of the investigation, as much as I think people not yet convicted should be treated as innocent, I also think the public has a right to protections in cases where there is a plausible threat. In this case regardless of his guilt, there was a plausible threat to children under his care.
The problem is that if you tell a scout group you're telling the parents, and it only takes one to make a stink about it for it to spread. Sadly, although perhaps expectedly, the nuance of plausible threat vs conviction is often lost in times like this.