I do indeed, but only for very specific crimes where the fallout that comes from 'rumour' would be of significant detriment to the accused if he/she was declared innocent at the end of the trial... I also believe that anonymity should be waived the second the accused is found guilty. Once he/she is guilty as charged, everyone can write whatever they want and plaster it all over social media with their opinions.

I have no problem with the courtroom being open and I have no problem with the press reporting on the case provided they do not disclose the names of the people involved. If you want to find out the names of the people then you have to go haul your ass into the courtroom and watch. The entire process can be transparent without being publicised, because what is 'in the public interest' and 'what the public are interested in' are two very different things. If you then left the courtroom and published the names of the people involved on social media or in any form of media, you'd be charged and brought to criminal court.

Judges do this all the time - and did it in the case I outlined in my article. Lifelong anonymity for the accuser is granted in British law but not to the accused. The people who released the real name of Miss R on social media were held in contempt by a furious judge, got a knock on the door from the police and ten of them found themselves in court each paying £600 in damages. If you can do this for one party, you can (and I'd argue should) do it for both.