So in the wake of a massive public spotlight on rape, the priority apparently is to protect the reputations of the tiny % of men falsely accused of rape

Thanks YNK that is from 2010 though?

I know we went through all of this on here a couple of years back when it was being raised - and they dropped the plans which obviously was good BUT even tabling these ideas can have an adverse effect on perceptions. Tactic used by the US right etc moving the overton window and all that. I was concerned that it was back on the table again.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/21/rapists-anonymity-plan

Sorry!

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/21/rapists-anonymity-plan

It's the condems again Trekkie

I haven't read the whole thread but from the OP is there a a move within govt to change the law on this or has something else happened? who is making the new demand for anonimity?

Posted too soon..... what about when police ask for other potential victims to come forward? Are they coming forward to act as corroborative witnesses or will charges be heard at that trial for their case?
Sorry to be dense!

Can I ask if someone can enlighten me? (also posted in legal)

In the case of John Warboys, the taxi driver rapist. Did he stand trial in all the cases separately or was there a collective trial where all the charges were brought together?
If the police ask for other victims to come forward to support a prosecution are they coming forward to stand as corroborating witnesses or is their allegation taken into consideration in some other way?

I hope someone can help me make sense of this as I have been told a case must be made on an individual basis, but I seem to remember cases where the charges were against serial rapists and there was no indication of separate trials for each victim. Another one that comes to mind is the recent Rochdale gang. anyone help me understand how a serial rapist is dealt with in court?

wow. That is seriously useful to know Stewie, thank you.

Quite late to this but agree with Fastidia and most posters on here.

WRT to anonymity and false allegations - surely that's a red herring, in most cases of false allegations the alleged victim usually doesn't name a perpetrator. The idea that there are all these women 'crying rape' and that poor menz need protecting them doesn't stand up. It just helps to support rape myths and rape apologists.

That is a really good way of putting it Artex.

A good article on why anonymity for defendents is wrong. It explains, in some part, the traumas a victim goes through in court. But of course, it is so much more than just what happens in court. It is the reporting, the reaction of friends/family, the reaction of the perpetrator, the aftermath of the court case. None of it is right and all of it adds up to why women don't report and to some extent why convictions don't happen.

I do agree op, I was gang raped age 13 by boys a similar age to me, they received a fine and 12 month youth offenders course, I received a total of £300 compensation for something that has damaged my life terribly.

In 2010 age 19 my ex boyfriend raped me on my own bed a few weeks after I ended it with him, and he was round collecting his stuff. I saw little point in reporting it as the punishment dealt out is so lenient its a slap on the wrist, plus there would likely never be a conviction due to him being my ex and obviously slept with him previously, it would be his word against mine.

the only reason the first people were prosecuted was because out of the 10 or so people that witnessed what happened to me only one guy actually informed the police. The rest stayed loyal to their rapist friends.

I feel sorry for any guy wrongly accused of rape, I hate women who do that as they make it harder for genuine victims. But let's not pretend its anywhere near the scale of sexual violence against women, it isn't and never will be. As a woman and victim of sexual assault I do not have faith in the justice system when it comes to rape. Not enough is done even when the offender is found guilty.

Sorry for this rant but occasionally this issue really gets to me.

Helena Kennedy writes very eloquently on this subject. There are very good reasons why defendants in rape cases are not granted anonymity.

First, no other defendant is granted anonymity. Leading human rights lawyer Harriet Wistrich says:

"Allowing defendants in rape cases, but not those charged with other offences, to remain anonymous would be discriminatory because it would apply almost exclusively to men."

From THIS article. It goes on to say Alleged terrorists don't get anonymity, so let's not make rape a special case. Defendants already get quite enough compared to their victims.

Secondly, corroboration is very important when it comes to convicting serial sex offenders. Both in getting a conviction against them in a court, and in getting victims to come forward and report crimes against them.

From the same article: Women who had not previously had the confidence to report a rape were often inspired to do so after seeing media reports naming and picturing the same man, experts said, and allowing the accused to remain anonymous would prevent such breakthroughs.

They also expressed concern that the proposal, which is intended to protect men from the damaging impact of "false allegations", gave the impression that women frequently lie about rape and could put them off coming forward, hitting the already low conviction rate.

It's a genuine question, would the conviction rate be higher or lower regardless of who or what station they occupy.

Does anonymity have an impact on the conviction rate? I'm talking about cases involving Joe Public, not any celebrities/known people.

And if everyone is being treated equally, does that mean that if the accuser has their past dragged up in front of the court, the accused should too?

Would there be more or less convictions if anonymity remained for both the victim and the accused?

Treating people equally before the law does not mean treating them the same. Helena Kennedy is very good on this.

Can I ask - what is the actual reason given for people being named in some cases and not others? Or is it a blanket thing and I am just a bit dense

I believe all people should be treated equally before the law.

If the accused is named in public then so should the accuser.

If the accused is anonymous then so should the accuser be.

edam I think that if people started facing up to rape myths they'd have to face up to everything else as well. Once you start looking at things through a feminist lens, it is very hard to take it all in. I have always been a feminist, but probably only really saw how bad things were in my late 20s. And I was very very angry and depressed for a long time because of it. Even now, I have to switch my brain off to it or I am just overwhelmed by all the shit.

It is far easier to just block everything out and pretend it doesn't happen.

Like Joyful says, it's far easier to "other" rape victims and then it will never happen to you, because you're too careful/not a slut/not an idiot/not a tease.

You see it in everything. So many women I know call other women "slags" and "sluts" and "whores" because of their sexual choices/clothing. It depresses the hell out of me particularly because if there is any debate about eg Page 3, they just shrug and say it's a woman's choice.