Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

MPs committee strongly recommends anonymity for people accused of sex crimes

89 replies

PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 10:15

This is back again:
here bbc

I am wholly of the opinion that this will go through, and handily just in time for when the investigations into historical sex offences by powerful people including many politicians gets underway.

It's just pathetically transparent.

Below the line commenters are all red hot keen, with many advocating for anon until found guilty. A few people saying that this should apply for all crimes (which is a far more logical standpoint unless you believe that women and children are inveterate liars when it comes to reporting abuse) and I haven't spotted anyone saying it might cause problems, although only skimmed top rated.

I think for me, the concept of not being allowed to report until charged, if it applied for all crimes would probably be reasonable and not interfere too much, although you'd need to try it to find out.

The idea that it's needed for sex crimes only as that ruins lives more is just such a load of shit. A person being accused of torturing animals or murder or conning old people out of money doesn't exactly get off scott free in terms of reputation. The reasoning is actually that many people like to think that women and children lie about this all the time for reasons that are never fully explained, and the evil bastards must be stopped.

So if they do this and make it for sex crimes only they are reinforcing the idea that many / most of these reports are lies and that will set things back years. Which will help though because actually people in authority don't want this stuff reported, it costs time and money to investigate, it makes things difficult with their friends, it makes them look bad when it turns out they didn't do it properly (rochdale, jimmy saville etc etc so many examples) and so on. Far better that people who are assaulted just put up and shut up which is what happens most of the time anyway but might push it back even further.

It's basically a large number of (low importance) victims being chucked under the bus to protect a tiny handful of powerful men, plus ca change.

OP posts:
Smartleatherbag · 22/03/2015 11:53

It's shockingly petty

GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 11:53

Huh? I'm Confused too! Oh, well, good to hear it is in English (except for me.)

ChopperGordino · 22/03/2015 11:44

It's all in engish for me in your link Confused

PuffinsAreFictitious · 22/03/2015 11:43

It's in English..... Using your link.

What really doesn't help is so-called prominent 'feminists' publically refusing to support it because it's written by someone they don't bloody like. So, petty jealousy and personal differences are more important to those people than protecting women. Nice Hmm

[[http://elegantgatheringofwhitesnows.com/?p=2366 Blogpost here]]

GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 11:39

It doesn't help that the petition's written in Spanish! Is there some way to switch it to English?

Smartleatherbag · 22/03/2015 11:37

Re the petition louise Pennington started, does anyone know who it was that refused to sign it, because they disagree with her on other issues? Shame.

qumquat · 22/03/2015 11:13

I am so angry about this. Especially at a time just after Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc. why can't people see that this rule would protect people like them?

AWholeLottaNosy · 21/03/2015 18:35

Yonic, yes that's true but only aprox 11% of reported rapes even get to court in the first place. The CPS have to have a pretty watertight case for there to be a 'reasonable chance of conviction'. Most cases are weeded out before they get to that stage. One of the most common reasons is 'lack of evidence'. Since most rapes happen in private, often with no injuries it tends to be one person's word against another. Since this isn't enough for a jury to be sure, it's unlikely to go ahead... Unless other victims come forward, which they are much more likely to do if it is reported in the press. False allegations are only aprox 2-3% of allegations. Furthermore there are aprox 85,000 rapes in the UK A YEAR and only 5-15% get reported. So we are talking a tiny number!

Further complicated by the fact that just because a case is dropped or a suspect is found not guilty, DOESNT MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, just that it couldn't be proved.

Well done MPs, this is basically a Rapists' Charter.

You'd think that after all the high profile cases the last few years the powers that be would want to make it easier for women to come forward and report rape. Wouldn't you...?

slugseatlettuce · 21/03/2015 18:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

slugseatlettuce · 21/03/2015 18:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YonicScrewdriver · 21/03/2015 18:18

Fay, if you read the thread, it's clear that publishing the name of a suspect has, many times, brought forward other witnesses. John Worboys, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris etc I believe all fell into this category.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 21/03/2015 18:18

Really Fayyive? Read the thread and then get back to us.

fayyive · 21/03/2015 18:14

"It's a great idea, if we WANT to see a big fall in the number of sex crime convictions."

I don't see how anonymity for a suspect would make them less likely to be convicted. The judge and jury decide on whether to convict, so what difference will it make if the suspect is in the newspapers or not? How will the public knowing about the accusation increase the chance of a conviction?

TheBlackRider · 21/03/2015 17:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

vesuvia · 21/03/2015 14:35

Anonymity for "people accused of sex crimes" is only on the agenda because it is about protecting men who are suspected of rape. That is rape culture in action.

I heard on the radio that a YouGov survey on this proposal, for anonymity before charge for people suspected of sexual offences, showed 77% in favour of the proposal.

If this proposal does come before Parliament for MPs to change the law, I wonder whether it would be defeated in a similar way to how MPs reject capital punishment, by not reflecting the national mood of their constituents, most of whom favour capital punishment.

I think the success or failure of the anonymity proposal will depend on how many rape myths are believed by MPs. I hope feminists can make as many MPs as possible aware of rape myths and why they are myths.

qumquat · 21/03/2015 13:27

Thanks Buffy

YonicScrewdriver · 21/03/2015 12:11

"abysmally low conviction rates for rape"

When cases get to court, the % found guilty are broadly in line with other crimes of personal violence.

Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 21/03/2015 11:59

I think it would be really interesting to find out why so many people are so eager to believe that women and children are prone to making false reports, and especially to get someone to sit down with someone like the person you heard slug and talk to them about it with the stats and what has gone on with the police and stuff and try and get to the bottom of why they believe this.

I know many of the reasons that make sense but it would be so interesting to find out from someone who actually believes this, really why, and if they can be persuaded otherwise (working on the assumption they aren't an abuser themselves / close to one which of course a proportion will be).

OP posts:
slugseatlettuce · 21/03/2015 09:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

slugseatlettuce · 21/03/2015 09:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BuffyEpistemiwhatsit · 21/03/2015 09:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhatWouldFreddieDo · 21/03/2015 09:23

Sashh, no, it's if you're arrested on suspicion, to 'help police with their enquiries' , but you've not yet been charged with an offence. Only when charged with rape would their name be released.

sashh · 21/03/2015 08:22

So if you murder someone the press can report, but if you rape them first, or have sex with the corpse the press can't?

qumquat · 21/03/2015 08:04

I've gone and got myself into a debate on Facebook about this. My 'friend' is claiming that the abysmally low conviction rates for rape suggest that many victims are in fact making false accusations. Can you point me to the source of the info that rape is no more falsely reported than other crimes? (I should probably just stop, I've been awake most of the night stressing about this.)

Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 21:21

Just googling a bit and made the mistake of reading the comments on another article that was written a few months back.

Commenters saying:

Both parties should be anon until a guilty verdict at which point both should be named
The police should not warn the public about people who have not been found guilty being on the run, as it's not fair and women should be looking after themselves anyway
The police should not be allowed to identify potential suspects to anyone as it's not fair on them because of their reputation

I am continuously surprised that people hold these views. There is a lot to that comment that women are hated isn't there.

OP posts: