Cliff Richard has started a petition re anonymity of sex-related accusations until charge

Excuse my typos.

yes, most definitely.
my dh lost a lot of business when he was questioned about a rape as someone thought he looked like the mug shot on tv.
The Police interviewed his clients for alibi and told them what it was about.
I don't think they should be allowed to do this if they aren't going to charge.
The rapist was caught in the end, but nobody made a big deal of publicising the fact he hadn't done it. We had to move in the end, and it harmed him mentally for a long time.

Seems reasonable to me (anonymity before charge, that is).

He was treated disgracefully. There was a whiff of "oh look, a gay man who acts all goody goody, let's get him" about it.

I've not signed it, I'm in two minds.

But they, in effect, are. I can think of only a couple of cases ever (Cliff Richard and Paul Gambiccini) where they’ve been named before charge. In real life, the press never name suspects of rape before charge because they don’t know their names.

There was the whole 'operation midland' business. One 'informant', who is now on trial, made grave accusations against various 'members of the establishment', living and dead. (Perhaps coincidentally, many of them were Jewish )

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48885476

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/14/man-known-nick-invented-heinous-sex-abuse-allegations-against/

I'm pleased to see thi spotition has very few signitorys, consudering how much publicity it's had

I agree. It’s so depressing how people on a “feminism” board are so quick to sign this. We all know very few rapists will ever be convicted. This is the last deterrent we have.

I'm pleased to see thi spotition has very few signitorys, consudering how much publicity it's had.

The law already states that the names of anyone questioned for a sex offense, should not be released UNLESS there are exceptional circumstances, and permission to release a name has to be made from a senior police officer.
Cliff should be going after the police and the media rather than trying to change the law.

Exactly. Only around 3% of people are lying about being raped. The vast majority of guilty rapists are not punished. At this point being named and shamed is the only deterrent we have.

Right now we have a 1.7% conviction rate so there names being out there is virtually the only deterrent at this point.

1.7% prosecution rate. Not even a conviction rate.

I see no reason why this would prevent victims from coming forward.

Given that many victims come forward because their abuser is named in the press, of course it will stop victims from coming forward - much easier for victims to come forward when they know an investigation is already taking place.

I agree and will sign the petition.

Right now we have a 1.7% conviction rate so there names being out there is virtually the only deterrent at this point.

Charged... charged....

I didn't think anyone should be named unless convicted of any crime ! You are innocent until PROVEN guilty. That's the basis of our legal system. Mud sticks even if someone is accused and they are totally innocent

That you can think if any is the point, I think.

And Christopher Jefferies? Different crime...

It isn't about contempt of court, this is speculation before anything gets to court. Sometimes it is, as I said, gosips etc, other times it is the media.

And I have personal experience of a journalist lifting a name off facebook. So it does happen to 'nobodies' too (this man was guilty, but that isn't the point).

journalists should be restrained from publishing names until charges are brought.

But they, in effect, are. I can think of only a couple of cases ever (Cliff Richard and Paul Gambiccini) where they’ve been named before charge. In real life, the press never name suspects of rape before charge because they don’t know their names.

But barelove that study is about the stigma left behind because of the investigation itself. So should we not investigate?

It’s not trial by media that’s the problem - the press are bound by incredibly strict contempt laws which they follow. It’s social media that’s the problem. I’d like to see judges robustly deal with people who are in contempt of court because of what they post on forums and Facebook. The law should be equally applied.

I agree that justice can only be served if there is anonymity until convicted. Too many lives ruined by allegations that are not proven. I think that for all crimes. Your right to innocence should be protected and trials should be by jury not media. I seem to be repeating this... NOT CONVICTED, until CHARGED. Once charged the name can be made publi as there would be a weight of evidence suggesting an individual had committed a crime and naming them might bring forward more witnesses and/or victims.

I don't see why this isn't the case for EVERY crime. Though I do appreciate it is gossips, neighbours, freinds and family who do most of the leakong to the press, journalists should be restrained from publishing names until charges are brought.

Interesting study into the impact of being wrongly accused of abuse:

www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/the_impact_of_being_wrongly_accused_of_abuse_hoyle_et_al_2016_15_may.pdf

'The present study suggests that during and following all these processes, accused individuals and their families do indeed suffer enormously from the stigma and revulsion associated with sexual abuse, from the deprivations during the investigation and the lifelong suspicion (that they ‘got away with it’) that is likely to follow. It finds that even if such allegations do not lead to criminal proceedings, they are likely to have life-changing effects. Formal investigations, whether in a civil or criminal context, are harrowing for the accused person, and may result in immediate suspension from work and temporary restrictions on contact with children, and a record of having been reported and investigated, which can cause longer term damage to employment prospects and relationships.'

I think Cliff Richard is right, it's certainly understandable he is taking such a strong line in view of what he had to go through.

I agree that justice can only be served if there is anonymity until convicted. Too many lives ruined by allegations that are not proven. I think that for all crimes. Your right to innocence should be protected and trials should be by jury not media.

I had already actually signed the petition, before this post.
I agree with him.

JaniceBattersby

Thank you for sharing that. It’s really helped me form my opinion on this.

What is Cliff Richards motive then? I don’t quite get the point, all things considered.

And it is laughable to think that the coppers are feeding the media information. They aren’t. Officers are terrified of speaking to the press nowadays. Even the most senior officers. There are a few notable exceptions but if I had a quid for every time I hear ‘phone the press office’ (at 6pm on a Friday night, after a stabbing, when it doesn’t reopen till Monday morning) I would be sitting on a sun lounger in Mauritius right now.

I’ve not yet seen anyone agreeing with Richards’ stance who actually reports on rape cases on a regular basis.

I do.

I spend my days reporting on court cases in the regions and have done for the past two decades. I’ve never once named a suspect before charge unless there has been a direct police appeal for a specific person (once, in my two decades). It just doesn’t happen in the real world. We wait until a first appearance at court because that means we can’t be sued for libel.

The only incredibly rare circumstances where people are named on arrest is when they are celebrities. So a new law would protect only a very, very small handful of white male celebrities from career damage. And tbh I haven’t seen much career damage to those people who have been found not guilty in a court of law. Most of them just go back to their careers and crack the fuck on.

But changing the law would have a direct effect on victims. It would tell them that the presumption is immediately that the man must be protected.

I knew about the reporting restrictions/contempt of court.

Was hoping someone with more knowledge would weigh in re: how these proposed changes would interact with existing ones - no one has done so yet but I have a creeping unease about the whole premise of this campaign, so haven’t signed it.