Advanced search

To think Cliff Richard and co should stop their awful campaign?

(553 Posts)
PinkyOfPie Mon 17-Oct-16 22:54:36

In a nutshell Cliff Richard and other well known men have launched a campaign to grant anonymity to accused sexual offenders.

AIBU to think they should FOTTFSOF? Aside from it being a well known fact the other victims come forward when they see their abuser/rapist has been charged, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest a 'false' accusation of a sex crime impacts a person more than a false accusation of any other crime. Its a horrible rape myth that damages victims.

Also the official stats false accusations for rape and sexual assault (of which around 35 people are convicted a year in the U.K.) are no higher than false accusations any other crime.

So why in gods name would those accused of sexual crimes ever get special treatment?

Smartleatherbag Mon 17-Oct-16 22:56:45

I completely agree with you, op.

AVirginLitTheCandle Mon 17-Oct-16 22:56:49

YANBU but I suspect we'll be in the minority.

If anonymity for suspects had been in place before John Worboys was convicted then he would likely still be out there raping women in his taxi.

PinkyOfPie Mon 17-Oct-16 22:57:06

Source of the 35 a year. In the same period 5651 men were convicted of rape (we know this will be higher as it's notoriously low convictions rates). But going off the stats, for every 161 men convicted of rape, only 1 person tried to lie about someone raping them.

Mysecretgarden Mon 17-Oct-16 22:57:47

Yes agreed, I cannot find any justification for granting anonymity. For what? so that they can carry on without the public being careful?

PinkyOfPie Mon 17-Oct-16 22:58:16

AVirgin I'm hoping the consensus on MN would agree with me but there's always the odd MRA and apologist who slips through!

meatloaf Mon 17-Oct-16 23:00:26

I agree with you

Mysecretgarden Mon 17-Oct-16 23:01:05

PinkyOfPie that is very powerful.
so they are most likely guilty as charged

WordGetsAround Mon 17-Oct-16 23:01:39

I completely disagree. I think accused people should have anonymity until (it at all), they are charged.

Cliff Richard et al have had their reputations destroyed, and there is no going back. It is not good enough to just say that other victims may come forward.

I hope they are successful.

Whisky2014 Mon 17-Oct-16 23:02:13

Well its for anonymity until tjey are procen guilty which i think is fair enough. Peoples lives have been ruined for falsely being accused of rape. How is that fair? So someone's name is printed as soon as they are charged but not necessarily guilty. By all means name them if they are found guilty but not before.

J0kersSmile Mon 17-Oct-16 23:02:40

I agree.

(tin hat as thread will go anyway) I think he was the fall boy in the ring to get this legislation through.

WordGetsAround Mon 17-Oct-16 23:03:28

And I am certainly no apologist. Don't know what MRA is, but assume it's slagging off someone who dares to disagree with you.

MumOnTheRunCatchingUp Mon 17-Oct-16 23:03:35

agree with word too

PinkyOfPie Mon 17-Oct-16 23:03:55

Word do you think this for all criminals or just those accused of sexual offences?

You think "it's not good enough" that people see their abuser in the news and that gives them the bravery to come forward (like with Max Clifford and Rolf Harris victims) strengthening the prosecution case meaning it's more likely a rapist will be jailed for their crimes? You can't see how removing that would be problematic?

PinkyOfPie Mon 17-Oct-16 23:05:20

MRA is Men's Rights Activist (usually knocks about to trample over anything women's rights related)

SpeakNoWords Mon 17-Oct-16 23:05:26

What about other crimes like murder or gbh? Should people accused of those crimes have anonymity, or is it just rape/sexual offences that require special treatment?

AVirginLitTheCandle Mon 17-Oct-16 23:05:31

Peoples lives have been ruined for falsely being accused of rape

People's lives have been ruined after being falsely accused of all kinds of serious crimes - murder, child abuse, etc but people don't jump up and down and whine about how unfair it is that they aren't given anonymity.

PinkyOfPie Mon 17-Oct-16 23:06:16

Whisky can I ask you too do you think this should be for all crimes or just rape?

Whisky2014 Mon 17-Oct-16 23:06:18

But they would be named if they were proven to be guilty so therefor more people would come forward if thats the case? Its not like the guilty will never be named..

Whisky2014 Mon 17-Oct-16 23:07:14

Thinking about it now, probably all crimes. Im not sure why it isnt the case. It definitely should be. Innocent until PROVEN guilty

PinkyOfPie Mon 17-Oct-16 23:07:38

Quite AVirgin poor Christopher Jeffries was falsely accused and strung out by the press for Jo Yates' murder but don't see him or anyone else launching a campaign for the anonymity of those accused of murder

velocitykate Mon 17-Oct-16 23:07:58

Cliff Richard was NOT found innocent. It didn't go to trial because of insufficient evidence - that is NOT the same as being innocent. Only 50% of rape cases that go to trial result in a conviction and the CPS will not send it to court if they don't think there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. I suspect the majority of rapists go un-convicted because it never went to court in the first place.
I totally agree with pinky

MorrisZapp Mon 17-Oct-16 23:08:33

I'm surprised to hear it described as a rape myth that alleging sex crimes doesn't impact a persons life any more than another crime. I'm generally in favour of naming the accused, but we should give serious thought to this campaign.

If your husband or brother was falsely accused of rape (statistically , it's unlikely, I know) would you really consider that no more troubling than an accusation of fraud or property crime?

gunting Mon 17-Oct-16 23:08:46


legotits Mon 17-Oct-16 23:09:04

Sir Cliff can fuck off.

Just that.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now