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:
Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 21:09

Thanks for sharing slug, I'm sorry that happened to you.

Feeling powerless and very angry is a response lots of women and people who were victims as children end up feeling a lot of the time isn't it.

When these committees and people make these recommendations they don't seem seem to ever address this stuff? Why don't they say what it will mean in practical terms, how they would seek to mitigate any damage done by the change etc?

It seems really peculiar. Almost like they couldn't give a monkeys...

OP posts:
slugseatlettuce · 20/03/2015 21:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheBlackRider · 20/03/2015 19:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rivetingrosie · 20/03/2015 13:57

This is very wise -

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/nigel-evans-and-ben-sullivan-are-wrong-rape-suspects-should-not-be-given-anonymity

"The only way rape rates will fall is if people stop committing rapes, and to do that, both victims and perpetrators have to be convinced that the justice system works. Would it be such a terrible world if (let's face it) white men in positions of power felt a little more chilled by the idea that if they aren’t 100 per cent sure the other person wants to have sex, they might be arrested for rape? Is not getting your cock out unless you have enthusiastic consent really a challenge? Ultimately, we need to foster a culture where the fear of raping someone is real."

ChopperGordino · 20/03/2015 13:10

there is really no end to the amount of energy people (men in power in particular) will put into protecting and/or excusing abusers

Dervel · 20/03/2015 12:35

No I quite understand, I wouldn't single out sex crimes. It's just that's what is under discussion here.

Also snark away this is an emotive subject, I don't think we bring emotional dimensions to discussions often enough.

Just to clarify its the principle of anonymity I agree with (in all criminal cases). I can't see this coming about currently without there being an overall net negative effect.

I do however think we may be able to take another look at it when fundamental improvements to the way we legally approach sex crimes have been identified, debated and successfully implemented.

AWholeLottaNosy · 20/03/2015 12:34

Came on here to post about this but saw there was already a thread. So pissed off about this! Agree with good points made above, it really is a backwards step. Many rapists are serial offenders and publicising who they are encourages other victims to come forward. When the John Worbuoys case was publicised over 70 women came forward to say they'd been victims too. Rape is massively under reported with a pitiful conviction rate and this will only make it worse.

< despairs >

YonicScrewdriver · 20/03/2015 12:13

That was the Joanna Yeates murder, Pilchard.

christinarossetti · 20/03/2015 12:11

Generally, I would think that the people who would prefer it to be illegal to release photofits or other information about crimes are those who have committed them or who are trying to protect someone who has.

Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 11:35

I mean "no" there obv Grin

OP posts:
Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 11:34

Thing is I don't imagine that most people supporting this are thinking in terms of the police not being able to eg release a photofit, or a description, or let the public know if someone is on the run.

I think they are thinking "oh that bloke off coronation street that was terrible".

I think if most people were asked if they thought it should be illegal to release photofits of suspected serial rapists, they would say yes... Probably?

OP posts:
PuffinsAreFictitious · 20/03/2015 11:30

I don't see how police can reasonably investigate at all if they are not allowed to do anything that might or would identify the suspect.

I suspect that might well be the point.

Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 11:27

So the grey area about eg photofits that I mentioned earlier, or police releasing descriptions would not be grey at all, under the second interpretation.

OP posts:
Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 11:27

So is this anonymity in terms of the press, or anonymity in terms of doing anything that might identify a suspect to anyone?

It's not clear from the article, if it's the second then I agree, I don't see how police can reasonably investigate at all if they are not allowed to do anything that might or would identify the suspect.

OP posts:
cailindana · 20/03/2015 11:18

"What impact that will have on ability to see if there are other victims, and ability to get enough evidence to get to charge, I'm not sure if anyone knows."

Pilchard, the impact is blatantly obvious. Police would never ever put up with such a rule being put in place for robbery, for example, because it would kill such a large number of cases before they got off the ground. Imagine, a shop owner reports a large theft of money and accuses John of it. But there is no other evidence linking John to the crime so he is not charged and he can't be named. What do the police do? They can't ask about John's whereabouts, they can't ask other store owners in the areas if they've seen John being a bit suspicious. So, hands completely tied, case closed, unsolved. It completely stops an investigation. It allows John to walk off, cash in hand, big smile on his face. It means that if you commit a crime and leave no forensic evidence, you're laughing. Putting it in place for sex crimes basically legalises rape/sexual assault in some circumstances as it prevents police from investigating the crime. Do it right, and you can get away with it.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 20/03/2015 11:09

Dervel.... do you also think that accused muggers should have anonymity? Murderers? Fraudsters? I know that seems snarky, but it's not meant to be, because I know you get a lot of this, but this is singly about sex crimes, so is extremely problematic.

christinarossetti · 20/03/2015 11:07

Yes, the press is a problem in many ways. I'm sure that we all remember the paediatrician being mobbed and harassed for being a 'paedophile' some years ago.

But the press is a different, albeit related, issue.

Not releasing information in case someone 'might' be harrassed is clearly the thin end of an extremely slippery slope.

Agree about the members of this committee, and their friends, and their friends, and their friends.....

I keep wondering if someone will break rank (as has happened with the undercover police covert surveillance), although in this instance it would likely involve confessing to a crime, so likely not.

Dervel · 20/03/2015 11:02

Well this thread has me convinced anonymity is a bad idea under the current climate. Still not opposed to it in principle, but other things need to change first.

Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 11:00

Like that bloke who got an awful time in the press over that woman who went missing and was murdered, and it turned out it was someone in the house. I forget the names. They picked on this bloke, as far as I could see, because he had bad hair. At the time I thought WTF they are going over this bloke's life and there's nothing to say he's done anything wrong.

The PRESS is the problem here FGS. Well them and the vast numbers of sex offenders we have at large in society, obviously.

OP posts:
Teeste · 20/03/2015 10:57

I think this article puts it well - even Thatcher repealed the anonymity laws because the consequences were so dire.

Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 10:57

That was an I agree with Puffins, but christina you too.

To be clear though this is about anonymity until charged. Not all the way through. What impact that will have on ability to see if there are other victims, and ability to get enough evidence to get to charge, I'm not sure if anyone knows.

I would probably be comfy with this - as our media are such utter scum - as a trial run and for all crimes. Just sex offences - no fucking way in hell.

OP posts:
Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 10:55

I agree. Not just on the radar personally though, it's a closed "old boys" club (even though there are a few shocker women in there now) but they're all in the same "gang" even across parties when it comes to things like this.

They will protect their own, obviously. I'd be amazed if there are many people who can't see how obvious this all is.

OP posts:
christinarossetti · 20/03/2015 10:55

Theypeople you're talking about living in terror and fear of harrassment is as a result a member of their family being charged with criminal behaviour.

Legally and morally, surely the imperatives to uphold justice and ensure that victims of crimes are able to come forward and be believed trumps some hyperthetical 'harrassment' to an unknown person?

Anyone would think MPs want to keep the identity of people charged of sexual offences secret and limit the number of victims speaking to the police Hmm.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 20/03/2015 10:51

MPs committee needs to be looked at carefully to ensure none of them are on the radar for historic sex crimes.

And no, I stand by that, and won't retract. It's struck me more and more that the type of person who demands this kind of special treatment of men who attack women and children is the type of person who thinks there but for the grace of God.....

You see it a lot with the Rapist Evans' supporters. And with people my vile SiL who thinks that Jimmy Saville was fitted up, along with all his pals. despite the evidence and her being a lawyer and stuff

Original poster
PilchardPrincess · 20/03/2015 10:49

Thing is how many men accused of rape are people the papers are interested in?

How many accusations are false?

How many rapes and other sex offences go unreported?

How many rapes and other sex crimes have been reported and no crimed, dismissed, shelved, mishandled etc etc

How many sex offenders are serial offenders?

How massively have victims been let down over the years, how do their numbers compare to those who have been in the papers and accusations have been found to be false? Or against those whose accusations have been found not guilty?

It is weighing up thousands of (not powerful) victims against a handful of powerful men, putting them in those US scales if you like, and the handful of powerful men come out as more in need of protection and assistance than the thousands of not powerful victims.

Like I say, plus ca change and the timing of this is so utterly transparent it's just, utterly pathetic.

OP posts: