to worry about the accused?

[WitchWay]

DLT for example. How is anything going to be proven? Are people jumping on a bandwagon or am I very wrong to even think that? I don't condone abuse - far from it - but surely they can't all have been sailing along in JS's wake - can they?

Billy - what do you suggest? Protect the minority (falsely accused) at the expense of the far, far greater majority -victims who do not get justice, serial rapists left free to carry on raping?

Decisions are made for the greater good in all walks of life - including in the NHS regarding your sickle cell anaemia example. A disease that affects fewer patients will get less funding/attention. It doesn't mean the minority are thrown to the wolves - Keir Starmer said in his report that false accusations are serious when they do occur. Women who make false accusations are frequently slaughtered in the press, and often charged/imprisoned.

In fact, in one very well known case a woman went to prison - not for a false accusation, oh no, but for withdrawing her genuine rape claim under pressure from the rapists family.

One of the "triumphs" of the MRA is the widespread belief that women routinely lie about rape. So depressing.

Beach you keep banging on about this ' false rape accusations are no more common that false accusations for any other crime'. Really don't know where you get that from without any convincing data. But overall the evidential basis and reporting of rape and other offences are quite different. eg I imagine the false accusations of theft, or burglary or assault are quite small, as the evidence is v easily shown and corroborated. Which is tricky to compare where there are usually no other witnesses. Comparing those offences with rape isn't any help at all. It's just seems lazy.
And yes it is important to protect the badly accused.

Hettie the woman accused in that case has other children, who automatically are granted protection, and obviously if their mother is identified, then they will be.

Bit late now but still.

Hence people who are accused of child abuse generally are named or not depending on whether they have other children who might be identified / adversely affected or whether their identification might make it obvious who the victim was.

I think that judges generally make the call as to what restrictions are placed on the media. if you google there might be stuff out there. But I am sure that unless there are definite circs, generally anyone can be named in the press at arrest / charge etc.

BillyNotQuiteNoMates, if you think that the accused of all crimes should remain anonymous you are taking issue with the open justice system. That is nothing to do with sexual offences, it is a questioning of our entire justice system.

If you hold that opinion only for sexual offences then I refer you back to NiceTabard's posts.

You want to afford special protection to people who are accused of rape, that you would not afford to those accused of other very serious crimes such as murder, torture, terrorism etc. The only possible reason for this stance is a belief that women and girls routinely lie about rape, and thus men must be afforded special protection when accused of that crime.

Wanting to give anonimity to all men accused of rape, but not other crimes, sends a clear message that women and girls routinely lie about rape and men need to be protected.

"All" and "none" are quite similar then?

I recently heard a BBC radio programme about the truly horrendous trial by media endured by Christopher Jefferies, who was accused of having murdered poor Jo Yeates in Bristol. He was vilified appallingly, essentially because people decided he looked a bit weird and had some connection with her (landlord). After hearing his side of what that was like, it's impossible not to care for the rights of the suspected or accused when named publicly. Of course, someone else is serving time for her murder, while he was completely exonerated. Sure he won damages, but money is never going to give him back what he lost.

Wanting to give anonimity to all men accused of rape, but not other crimes, sends a clear message that women and girls routinely lie about rape and men need to be protected.

Or possibly that the gravity and consequences of being accused of severe inter-personal violence (incl murder or serious assaults) is so deep that those people should be granted anonimity.

Beach how many times do I have the same thing? Some people keep trying to put words into other people's mouths. Suzanne was right about one thing anyway - sometimes you can't dumb down any further!

Pan there have been plenty of reports from various UK institutions / committees etc putting false rape reports as low and generally in line with other crimes. You are (were?) a reg on the FWR board I am surprised that you are not aware of all the data & reports TBH.

And there are a few crimes where it is known false reporting runs v high - mobile phone theft for eg. Rape is most certainly not one of them.

No, double checked, Nice - it's all about sub judice. It's contempt of court to say anything at all about a person once they've been charged, including what they've been charged with. You can report what's happened in open court, though, so you can say that John Smith confirmed his name and address - but you cannot say that John Smith has been charged with whatever.

Nicely put Pan

Happy to accept that NT and stand suitably corrected.

Kier Starmer's report, for anyone interested in facts

I don't think anyone denies that being falsely accused is awful.

Can anyone come up with a solution?

UncleT

If you read about cases where non anonimity has led to successful prosecutions, you will come up with the opposite conclusion.

The govt etc looks at a balance of harm/protection. The current situation is where they think the balance works.

For every (appalling) case of a person vilified for something they didn't do, there will be people who were victimised horribly because people didn't (couldn't) put 2+2 together. It's a difficult thing.

Hettie i just googled accused stated name... or something.

Anyway this was the first result

says names and stuff

I am not sure what your point is though? Or how it is relevant to the thread?

The thing is, innocent people have their lives ruined by false allegations, but the other side of the coin is that guilty people have the case thrown out/ appeals upheld, because of unfair bias (or whatever the legal term is). Trial by media means that every Tom, Dick and Harry has their opinion before they ever get into the court room, and for every Tom, Dick and Harry, no matter what evidence they see, Tom and Dick won't change their minds.

curlew

I would start with:

• "Amnesty" on people reporting sex offences / DV/ stuff like that, that doesn't get reported a lot. Police can take it all and collate, some names / circs are bound to come up a lot, police can keep an eye / people might be willing to testify if they aren't "the only one"

• Police to receive even yet more and more training on handling sex offences

• Sex offence crime figures not massaged / no crimed / brushed under carpet

• ALL reports taken seriously (AKA no they AREN'T "child prostitutes" or in a "lifestyle")

• Sort the sodding media out -rapt myths and titillating reporting OUT

• erm

• more? I can think of plenty

Rape victims are also innocent people who have their lives ruined by a crime committed against them, Billy.

I think you mean rape "victims".

Think we're talking at cross purposes a bit, Nice.

If you read your link it does not name the accused, just the victims.

That's the point I'm making.

Relevance to the thread is a bit tenuous - but I just pointed out that strictly speaking anyone charged with a crime is granted anonymity anyway, since directly saying "John Smith is charged with murdering Peter Smith" is contempt of court because that information is sub judice.

BUT - it's pointless because the press get round it by saying: "A man has been charged with murder. John Smith appeared in court this morning..." They are not actually saying that John Smith has been charged with murder, just that he's appeared in court.

nt- all very laudable.

How is it going to help the falsely accused?

sabrina No shit, Sherlock!
I'm getting tired now, not sure if it's because it's very late or because people are still not reading posts!

What happens on volatile threads like this is that many of of the most ardent contributors project their image of the world's most appalling women-hating monster onto anyone who suggests that defendants in a sexual abuse cases should receive a fair trial.

If I'd expressed any of the foul opinions that some people (notably the late arrivals) are attributing to me, I'd cheerfully join the mob that wants to burn me at the stake.

But, and it's a big but - I haven't expressed any of those opinions, and the more rational readers of this thread can and will see that's true.

By all means be a feminist. All decent people want equal rights for men and women but, no matter how strongly you feel, please try not to be a fanatical man-hating feminist.

It's fanatical man-hating feminists (like the person who described all men as 'diseased' on another similar thread) that are giving the rest of us a bad name.

Glad to see you are back Suzanne, now they can gang up on you again and leave me alone! What is it with people who don't read posts and project whatever they want to read onto other people?